unifi_list_vpn_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all VPN servers at a site', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' entails in terms of scope. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. Every word ('List all VPN servers at a site') contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors) and output format, which are important given the tool's complexity (4 parameters). The high schema coverage helps, but more context would improve completeness for agent invocation.

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 100%, with clear documentation for all parameters (siteId, offset, limit, filter). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'filter' works or the implications of 'limit' defaults. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List all') and resource ('VPN servers at a site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_list_vpn_tunnels' or 'unifi_list_networks', which might also list VPN-related or site resources, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'unifi_list_vpn_tunnels' and 'unifi_list_networks' that might overlap in context, there's no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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