VPN-интерфейсы

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries transparency responsibility. It goes beyond the title by disclosing an important reliability caveat: WireGuard filtering is live-verified, while OpenVPN/IKEv2/L2TP/PPTP/VLESS filtering is only type-based and not verified on a real router. This is highly useful. A minor gap is the lack of explicit statement about what fields the list returns.

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 concise sentences cover the core purpose, the exact filtering scope, a reliability warning, and the practical use case. There is no filler, and the highest-value information is front-loaded.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, which tunnel types are trusted, and why an agent would call it. It could add a little more detail about the output values needed by bind_route_to_vpn, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already reflects that fully. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters to document, the baseline 4 applies and no description compensation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as returning a filtered list of router interfaces limited to VPN tunnels, making its purpose concrete and distinct from the generic sibling get_interfaces. It also names the typical next step (bind_route_to_vpn), reinforcing the tool's role.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for binding routes to VPN tunnels and scopes it to only VPN interfaces. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_interfaces for non-VPN interfaces, but the exclusion is strongly implied by 'only VPN tunnels'.

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