remnawave_infra_billing_list_nodes

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

The description claims 'read', but the input schema includes parameters like mutationApproved and confirmToken typically associated with mutations, not reads. This contradiction undermines transparency. No annotations are provided to clarify safety or side effects.

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?

While the description is short, it sacrifices critical information. It fails to earn its place by omitting necessary details about behavior, parameters, or return values. A single vague sentence is not effective conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format or at least the scope of nodes listed. It does not. With many sibling list tools, the description should differentiate, but it does not. The tool is incomplete for its purpose.

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 adds no information about parameters. The four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved) remain unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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 states 'Remnawave infra_billing.list_nodes (read)', clearly indicating a list operation for nodes in the infra_billing context. It uses a specific verb and resource, but lacks differentiation from sibling list tools like list_providers or list_history.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must rely on the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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