remnawave_profiles_list_inbounds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only states '(read)', implying a safe read operation, but fails to disclose any traits like required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The minimal hint 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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word is present but adds little value. The parenthetical '(read)' is a minimal hint, but overall the description fails to convey essential information efficiently.

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, including a nested object and an enum, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, or expected behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it 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%, yet the description adds no explanation for the 4 parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). It does not clarify what values the 'payload' object expects, the role of 'confirmToken', or the effect of 'responseMode'. The agent is left guessing.

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.list_inbounds (read)' essentially restates the tool name with a parenthetical hint. It does not specify what 'inbounds' are or the tool's scope (e.g., lists all inbounds globally or for a profile). This is vague and borders on tautology.

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 usage guidance is provided. The sibling tool 'remnawave_profiles_list_all_inbounds' suggests a different scope, but the description does not differentiate when to use one vs. the other. There are no cues about prerequisites or context.

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