htb_download_ovpn

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the download overwrites existing files (despite an 'overwrite' parameter), authentication needs, or what happens with the filename parameter. This is insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence) with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters) without sacrificing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits important details like the return value format, error handling, or prerequisite steps. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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%. The description explains the vpn_id implicitly and the 'protocol' parameter, but it does not add meaning for 'filename' or 'overwrite' parameters. Users remain unclear about their purpose beyond schema names.

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 the action ('Download an OpenVPN profile') and the required identifier ('for a VPN server id'). It also specifies the protocol constraint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like htb_vpn_servers or htb_switch_vpn_server, which could cause ambiguity.

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 provides a constraint on protocol ('must be udp or tcp') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining a VPN server ID from another tool.

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