list_integration_vpn_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the purpose and lists parameters, but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as pagination specifics, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The mention of 'paginated list' is minimal.

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 uses a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It is relatively concise but includes an extraneous parameter (settings) that does not exist in the schema, reducing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain pagination behavior, the purpose of the site_id, or any constraints beyond the parameter list. The missing settings parameter further undermines completeness.

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 description adds some value for limit and offset (constraint 1-1000, skip purpose) which schema lacks, but includes a phantom 'settings' parameter not in the schema, creating confusion. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but instead introduces an error.

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 it lists VPN servers via the integration API, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like list_integration_clients or list_integration_devices, though the resource name is unique.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when to prefer this over other list or VPN-related tools.

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