remnawave_system_get_recap

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'read', implying non-destructive operation, but fails to disclose authorization needs, rate limits, response structure, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 brief but fails to provide necessary information. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative. While short, it does not earn its place by adding 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 tool's complexity (four parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about returns, parameters, or invariants, making it nearly unusable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved). The agent is left with no guidance on how to use these fields, especially since mutationApproved and confirmToken seem contradictory for a read operation.

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 simply repeats the tool name and adds '(read)', which only indicates it's a read operation. It does not explain what a 'recap' is, leaving the purpose vague. Compared to siblings with clearer names like 'get_health' or 'get_stats', this tool's description provides no differentiation.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no hints about appropriate use cases.

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