users_get_by_short_uuid

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what happens if the short UUID is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information (action and resource) and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and output, which are important for an agent to operate correctly without annotations. It's complete enough for a simple read operation but could be improved with more context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'shortUuid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is used for lookup, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a Remnawave user'), specifying the lookup method ('by their short UUID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'users_get' (likely by regular UUID) and 'users_get_by_username', making the purpose specific but not fully differentiating from 'subscriptions_get_by_short_uuid' which uses the same lookup method for a different resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'users_get' or 'users_get_by_username'. The description implies usage when you have a short UUID, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.