remnawave_system_get_metadata

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

The description includes '(read)' suggesting a safe, read-only operation, but provides no further behavioral details such as authentication requirements, response format, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 at one short line, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. While there is no wasted text, the lack of structure and essential information makes it only minimally acceptable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the payload should be structured, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 offers no explanation of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). The agent has no clue what these parameters do, severely hampering correct invocation.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('Remnawave system.get_metadata (read)') without clarifying what metadata is retrieved. It adds only the label '(read)' to indicate a read operation, but fails to distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools in the sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no basis for selection.

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