Get one VPN interface

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read, and the description adds 'projected state' and 'protocol-specific runtime fields' as the kind of output an agent should expect. However, it does not clarify what 'projected state' means, whether errors are raised for unknown names, or what a typical response contains, so behavioral detail beyond annotations is only modest.

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 entire description is a single compact sentence that conveys the resource and return substance without filler. It is front-loaded with the core 'detailed state' behavior and stays within the minimum words needed.

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 one-parameter read-only getter the definition is reasonably complete, but the term 'projected state' is jargon and there is no output schema describing the returned fields. An agent could invoke the tool, but it won't know what exactly the response contains until after the call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The phrase 'one named VPN interface' clarifies that the required `name` parameter identifies the VPN interface, but it gives no format, examples, or accepted name conventions, so an agent only learns the bare semantic link.

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 says the tool returns 'Detailed projected state and protocol-specific runtime fields for one named VPN interface,' which names the resource (one VPN interface) and implies single-interface granularity, distinguishing it from list_vpn's plural behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so agents must infer how it differs from get_interface or get_device.

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 about when to choose get_vpn over list_vpn, get_interface, or the other sibling tools. The description does not state prerequisites, alternative conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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