Org API — list VPN clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint and the org-scoping, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination, response shape, or any behavioral details beyond 'list clients', so it falls short of rich transparency.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('List clients') and includes the endpoint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 list operation with an explicit endpoint, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does and its scope. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have elaborated on the returned data shape, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds meaning by implying that the API key provides the org context, so no additional arguments are needed. It does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a precise resource ('VPN clients') and clearly scopes it to 'the API key's org'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vpn_client_list and org_list. The endpoint is also included, removing any 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 phrase 'for the API key's org' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need clients belonging to the org associated with the API key. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like vpn_client_list or when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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