openvpn_sessions

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 the result contains session client details (name, address, bytes), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, session limits, or auth requirements beyond the read nature.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the what and followed by the parameter note; nothing is wasted. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate for a single parameter but harmless.

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 simple, annotated, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the parameter, and a sketch of the return fields. The only unmet need is routing guidance relative to the many sibling status tools.

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%, so the description carries the burden: it explains that 'target' is a firewall target name from config and that omitting it selects the default. That is exactly the missing semantic for this optional parameter, though it does not clarify format or valid values.

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 names the specific resource (OpenVPN sessions / connected clients) and even previews the returned fields (name, address, bytes), with a [READ] tag marking the operation type. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wireguard_status and ipsec_sas, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wireguard_status or ipsec_sas, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual note ('omit for the default') is a parameter detail, not usage guidance.

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