Get Ike Server Config

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds nothing on top of that: no mention of permissions, whether the config is masked/redacted (e.g. PSK secrets), or what happens when IKEv2 is disabled. The seven-word phrase contributes zero behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

A single short clause with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and there are no parameters to cover. What remains missing is scoping information an agent would want: whether this covers IKEv2 only or IPSec too, and whether it is the same data surfaced by list_vpn_servers. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter semantics to add, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair (get IKEv2/IPSec server config) and, by saying 'server', distinguishes itself from the client-side siblings get_ikev2_client_config and get_ipsec_client_config. It does not, however, disambiguate from get_pptp_server_config / get_l2tp_server_config / get_openvpn_server_config beyond protocol name, nor clarify whether this single tool covers both IKEv2 and IPSec server settings.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not told how this relates to list_vpn_servers, toggle_vpn_server, or the per-protocol client config tools in the sibling list, so the selection context must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'server config'.

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