get_openvpn_server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds 'all OpenVPN servers' as useful scope context, but does not disclose return format, potential emptiness, or any operational nuances. However, for a simple read-only status getter, this is acceptable.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, contains no redundant information, and is easy to parse.

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 that the tool has no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated to exist), the description is largely complete. It does not explain return values (schema covers that), but it could have briefly distinguished itself from get_openvpn_status to prevent confusion. Still, for a simple status getter, the description is sufficient.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description correctly implies there are no inputs. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; no additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('status of all OpenVPN servers'), and the scope ('all'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_openvpn_client_status by specifying servers, and from get_openvpn_status by focusing on all servers individually.

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 such as get_openvpn_status or search_openvpn_servers. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions under which this tool is the preferred choice.

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