remnawave_internal_squads_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says '(read)', implying no modifications. It does not explain unusual parameters like confirmToken and mutationApproved, nor does it mention authorization, pagination, or output 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 concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; vital information about parameters and behavior is missing.

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 (one nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not describe return values, prerequisites, or how to construct the payload, leaving the agent unable to use the tool 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 does not mention any parameters. The four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved) are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without critical guidance on their meaning or 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 internal_squads.list (read)', indicating it is a read operation to list internal squads. However, it lacks context about what internal squads are and does not differentiate clearly from sibling tools like remnawave_internal_squads_get or remnawave_external_squads_list.

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. Sibling tools include both list and get operations for internal and external squads, but there is no mention of use cases or prerequisites.

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