remnawave_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (username, status, etc.) and pagination behavior, which are not in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value: it states the action (list), resource (VPN users), key feature (pagination), and returned fields. There is no verbosity or redundancy.

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 simplicity (list with pagination) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It includes the core functionality and lists the returned fields. The pagination mechanism is implied by 'pagination' and the output schema can provide exact types. No critical information is missing.

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%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description mentions 'pagination' but does not explain the role of 'size' (page size) or 'start' (offset). With low coverage, the description should compensate by detailing parameter semantics, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer from property names only.

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 clearly states 'List all VPN users with pagination' and specifies the returned fields (username, status, traffic usage, expiration date, squads). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like remnawave_list_hosts and remnawave_list_nodes by referencing user-specific fields.

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 implies usage for listing VPN users with pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no direct guidance is provided.

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