network_list_vpn_servers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination parameters (offset, limit) but does not disclose that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. Basic behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a bulleted list of parameters. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Properly front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 an output schema exists, the description reasonably omits return value details. It covers the required parameter 'site_id' and pagination. Still, it could mention that the list is limited to a single site, but it's mostly complete for a trivial list tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It repeats defaults from schema but adds the maximum value for 'limit' (200), which is not in schema. However, it offers no additional context for 'site_id' beyond 'The site ID.' Partial compensation.

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') and resource ('VPN servers') with a specific scope ('on a local UniFi site'). It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'network_list_vpn_tunnels' by naming a different resource type, though not explicitly.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or restrictions. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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