remnawave_bandwidth_stats_list_nodes_usage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says '(read)', which hints at non-destructive operation, but doesn't explain the presence of 'confirmToken' and 'mutationApproved' parameters that typically imply write operations. No details on authentication, rate limits, or return format.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Conciseness without substance is not effective.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and is part of a family of similar tools, the description fails completely to provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero explanation of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). An agent cannot understand their purpose or how to use them correctly.

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 'Remnawave bandwidth_stats.list_nodes_usage (read)' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with '(read)' appended. It does not clarify what exactly is listed or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_node_users_usage'. It lacks specificity.

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 other bandwidth stats tools. An agent has no context to choose between 'list_nodes_usage' and 'get_node_users_usage' or other variants.

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