network_list_vpn_tunnels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('List') and mentions pagination parameters, but does not disclose sorting, filtering, or any side effects. It is adequate but lacks detail.

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 very concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and a structured list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted information.

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 list tool with pagination and an output schema (not shown), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main parameters and purpose, though it does not mention authentication or rate limits. The output schema presumably handles return value details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists each parameter (site_id, offset, limit) with brief explanations and defaults, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. It compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'List site-to-site VPN tunnels on a local UniFi site,' specifying the verb 'List,' the resource (site-to-site VPN tunnels), and the scope (local UniFi site). This distinguishes it from siblings like network_list_vpn_servers and other list tools.

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 implies usage for listing VPN tunnels but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_list_vpn_servers or other network list tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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