get_l2tp_server_config

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also does not disclose any additional traits such as what the configuration includes or whether the operation is always safe beyond the annotation's indication.

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 function with no wasted words. It is perfectly sized for this simple getter.

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, has an output schema, and is a read-only getter with a clear purpose, the minimal description is sufficient. There is no need for additional context about return values or side effects because those are covered by the output schema and readOnlyHint annotation.

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. The description is not required to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the schema is complete with 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 description clearly states the tool gets L2TP server configuration ('获取 L2TP 服务端配置'), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_l2tp_client_config (client vs server) and other VPN server config getters.

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?

Usage is implied from the name and description—it is for retrieving L2TP server configuration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives such as get_pptp_server_config or get_l2tp_client_config, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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