remnawave_users_get_by_email

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

The description discloses the operation is a 'sensitive-read,' hinting at read-only behavior with sensitivity, but no annotations are present to confirm. It fails to explain what triggers sensitivity, authorization needs, or side effects. The parameter mutationApproved suggests possible mutation, which is not clarified.

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 (two words plus label), which is concise but at the expense of conveying essential information. It does not waste words, but also does not earn its place by providing enough detail for an agent to use the tool correctly. A minimally adequate description would be longer.

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 four parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to construct the call, what the return data looks like, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably use this tool with only the current description.

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 description provides no information about any of the four parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on payload, confirmToken, responseMode, or mutationApproved. The description entirely fails to add meaning beyond the schema field names and types.

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 states the tool retrieves a user by email, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like remnawave_users_get_by_username or remnawave_users_get_by_id. The '(sensitive-read)' tag adds useful context but is insufficient for full 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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus other user retrieval tools. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and alternatives are not mentioned. The agent is left guessing based on the tool name alone.

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