diagnose_vpn_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds meaningful context about the multi-VPN scope and the summary output with error counts, which is useful for setting expectations beyond the annotations. No side effects are disclosed, but none are needed for a read-only diagnostic.

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 two sentences totaling fewer than 30 words, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Comprehensive VPN health check'). Every sentence adds distinct value—scope and output—without redundancy or filler.

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 explains the full scope of the diagnostic (which VPN types are covered) and the nature of the output (summary counts). Since an output schema exists to detail the return structure, the description need not elaborate further. It lacks only explicit guidance on when to prefer this over more specific status tools, but the scope is adequately clear.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing imaginary parameter guidance.

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 tool's purpose as a comprehensive VPN health check, specifically naming the covered VPN types (OpenVPN servers/clients, IPsec SAs, WireGuard peers) and the output (per-VPN summary with counts). It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools by aggregating multiple VPN types into a single check.

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 clearly establishes the tool's scope as a comprehensive check across all VPN types, giving an agent context for when to use it (when a full VPN health overview is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools like get_openvpn_status or other diagnose_* tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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