remnawave_bandwidth_stats_get_user_usage_legacy

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

Without annotations, description claims '(read)' but input schema includes 'mutationApproved' and 'confirmToken' parameters typically used for mutations, creating confusion. No disclosure of behavioral traits, safety, or side effects. The read claim contradicts the schema's implication of a possible write.

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?

Extremely short but under-specified. Single sentence lacks essential information, making it ineffective. Not a model of conciseness as it omits critical details.

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 4 complex parameters (nested object, enum) and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide any context for usage. Completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). The description adds no meaning; agent cannot infer how to correctly populate the parameters.

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?

Description only says 'Remnawave bandwidth_stats.get_user_usage_legacy (read).' It vaguely indicates a read operation but does not specify what data is retrieved (bandwidth stats for a specific user?). It minimally distinguishes from siblings like get_user_usage (non-legacy) but lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention when legacy vs non-legacy should be used, nor how it differs from other bandwidth stats tools. No context provided.

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