opnsense_get_vpn_status

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: it explains that WireGuard is connectionless, that there is no 'down' state to observe, and that a configured peer with no recent handshake is not connected regardless of interface status. It also discloses that a response key is omitted when a VPN type is not configured or its endpoint is absent, which is helpful for interpreting results.

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 efficient and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a focused paragraph on WireGuard interpretation, a compact Args block, a clear Returns schema, and two concrete examples. Every section serves a purpose and none is redundant filler; the WireGuard nuance is essential for correct use.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to parameterize it, what the return value looks like (including an output schema), and important interpretation caveats. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the available schema, and rich annotations, the description leaves no significant gaps.

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?

Even though the schema already defines 'kind' and 'response_format', the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of 'last handshake', advising that 'json' is better when chaining values into another call, and showing how the 'kind' parameter maps to concrete user questions. The Args section makes parameter choices and defaults explicit.

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 begins with 'Get the status of WireGuard peers and OpenVPN sessions, including last handshake times and transfer counters,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this tool from the many other opnsense_* siblings by focusing specifically on VPN tunnel status, reinforced by the title 'VPN Tunnel Status'.

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 clear 'Use when' examples ('Is my phone connected over WireGuard?' -> kind='wireguard', 'Who is on the VPN right now?' -> kind='both'), establishing appropriate contexts. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the examples and resource specificity make the usage scenario clear enough.

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