get_ipsec_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing the return content (connection status, established time, local/remote identities, child SA counts) and signaling that all IKE SAs are returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the verb+resource and is efficient at roughly 50 words across two sentences. However, the second sentence partially restates the first ('showing active tunnels and their state' vs. 'current state of all IPsec IKE SAs'), so not every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status getter with annotations and an output schema already present, the description is complete: it identifies the resource (IPsec SAs), scopes to IKE SAs, and lists the key data returned. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter usage; the empty schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb+resource ('Get IPsec Security Associations (SAs) status') and scopes the tool to IKE SAs, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_ipsec_child_sa_status. The second sentence reinforces the scope with 'current state of all IPsec IKE SAs' and enumerates specific data returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is for checking overall IPsec tunnel state (connection status, established time, identities) as opposed to child-SA-level detail or configuration tools like search_ipsec_phase1s. However, it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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