Get Openvpn 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, non-mutating read, and the description adds nothing beyond restating the resource. No note about required permissions, whether the server may be disabled, or what settings surface in the response. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the bar is lower, but zero added context earns a below-baseline score.

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 phrase with no padding and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter, though it is materially shorter than typical tool descriptions.

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 values need not be explained, and there are no parameters. However, for a config-reading tool with many similarly named VPN siblings, the description omits which OpenVPN server properties are covered and any precondition, leaving it only minimally viable.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies a parameter-free retrieval.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (OpenVPN server config), which cleanly separates it from siblings such as get_openvpn_client_config, get_pptp_server_config, and get_l2tp_server_config. The description itself does not name those alternatives, so it falls just short of the top band.

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, prerequisite, or alternative guidance of any kind. The agent must infer that this is a read-only config retrieval and that client-side configs live in the sibling tools. Nothing is stated about whether a VPN server must be configured first.

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