remnawave_profiles_list_all_inbounds

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

The description only states it is a 'read' operation, implying no side effects. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics. The single word 'read' is insufficient.

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 underspecification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information, making it unhelpful.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. A tool with 4 parameters (including a nested object) and many siblings requires far more detail to be usable.

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 explain any of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). The agent has no guidance on how to use the payload object or the meaning of the enums.

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 merely restates the tool name with the suffix '(read)', providing no additional context. It does not clarify what 'inbounds' are or how this tool differs from the sibling 'remnawave_profiles_list_inbounds', leaving purpose ambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'remnawave_profiles_list_inbounds' or other profile tools). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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