search_openvpn_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it supports filtering and pagination, which is some behavioral detail, but it does not disclose result limits, default sorting, or other edge-case behaviors.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key capabilities. It contains no filler or redundant 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?

Given the simple search semantics, optional parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify whether 'client instances' refers to configured clients or active sessions, and does not explain how it differs from other OpenVPN-related search tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., protocol, interface, search_term). The description adds minimal value, only hinting at filtering and pagination, which are already evident from the parameter list.

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 ('Search') and the resource ('OpenVPN client instances'), and mentions filtering and pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_openvpn_servers by explicitly targeting clients, and the name itself reinforces this distinction.

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 search_openvpn_servers, get_openvpn_client_status, or session-specific tools. The description simply states functionality without contextualizing its use.

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