remnawave_profiles_get

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

The description marks it as a read operation, implying no mutations, but provides no further behavioral details such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or whether it retrieves a single profile or multiple. Without annotations, more context is needed.

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, which is concise, but at the cost of omitting essential information needed for correct tool usage. It does not front-load key details; it simply restates the 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 tool's complexity (4 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 includes four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters do, their defaults, or their intended use.

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 profiles.get (read)' indicates a read operation for profiles but is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what profiles are or what the tool retrieves, offering no additional clarity beyond the name.

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 like remnawave_profiles_list or remnawave_profiles_get_computed. The description lacks any context for distinguishing usage scenarios.

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