remnawave_nodes_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says '(read)', which is minimally informative. It does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure, leaving the agent uninformed about how the tool 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 extremely short, but this is due to under-specification rather than conciseness. Every sentence should add value; here, the single sentence adds almost no value beyond the tool name.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to invoke the tool, what parameters are for, or what the expected output is, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). The agent receives no explanation of their purpose, defaults, or expected values beyond the schema.

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 nodes.list (read)' essentially restates the tool name and indicates a read operation, but it is too vague to clarify what is being listed or how it differs from sibling tools like remnawave_nodes_get or remnawave_nodes_list_tags. It lacks specificity about the resource and scope.

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. With many sibling tools for node operations, the agent has no basis to choose this tool over others like remnawave_nodes_get or remnawave_nodes_create.

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