get_openvpn_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 disclose what 'config' includes, whether the operation is safe beyond read-only, or any side effects. Since annotations already cover the read-only nature, the description contributes no additional transparency.

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 extremely short and to the point, but it essentially restates the tool name in another language. It is concise but adds little structural value; a single sentence that merely translates the name does not earn its place as meaningful content.

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 getter with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the simple description is sufficient. The output schema covers return details and the annotation covers safety, so the description does not need to elaborate further. It is complete for the tool's low complexity.

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 description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The empty schema already defines the absence of parameters, and with no parameters, the baseline score is 4.

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 retrieves OpenVPN server configuration, using the verb '获取' (get) and specifying the resource 'OpenVPN 服务端配置' (OpenVPN server config). It is not a mere tautology since it names the specific protocol and server side, distinguishing it from client config tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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_client_config or other server config getters. The usage is implied only by the name; there is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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