coronium_get_openvpn_config

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns .ovpn content and that VPN support varies by modem, but does not mention error behavior for unsupported modems, authentication requirements, or response format details beyond the file type.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 simple getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output type. It lacks explicit error handling notes, but given the low complexity, the coverage is sufficient.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter (modem _id or portId/name) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only reinforcing that the parameter identifies a modem, which is already clear from the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'OpenVPN config blob for a modem'. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from HTTP/SOCKS proxy tools by mentioning VPN tunnel access, which aligns with sibling tools like coronium_get_proxy.

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 context by stating that some modems offer VPN tunnel access in addition to proxy, implying this tool is for VPN configuration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, only implies differentiation.

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