ipsec_sas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include phase-1/phase-2 SAs and their state, which is useful return-shape context, but says nothing about scope (all tunnels? all targets?), volume, or whether peers are contacted live.

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?

One tight summary line plus a single documented arg, front-loaded and free of filler. The '[READ]' tag is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint but serves as a fast scan marker in a 34-tool set.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: what is returned (phase-1/phase-2 SAs with state) and how target selects the device. Only minor gaps remain around scope and result volume.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter has no schema description, so the description must carry it — and it does: 'Firewall target name from config; omit for the default' explains both provenance of the value and the default/omission behavior for the single optional param.

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?

States a specific resource ('IPsec security associations (phase-1/phase-2)') and an implicit list/retrieve verb with the returned attribute ('with state'). It is recognizably distinct from the other VPN-related siblings (wireguard_status, openvpn_sessions), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it lands at clear-but-not-routing.

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 '[READ]' prefix signals this is a non-mutating inspection call, which implies its usage context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative (e.g. wireguard_status, openvpn_sessions) is named. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the toolset.

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