list_vpn_clients

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read-only nature. The description adds the protocol list and the 'all' scoping, which is marginally useful. But it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response size, sensitivity of credentials, or absence of filtering capabilities, so it remains a minimal contribution beyond annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the supported protocols in parentheses. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list function, zero parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly enumerates the VPN protocol types covered. It could have added a note about using individual getters for per-protocol details, but that nuance is not necessary for a functional understanding, and the sibling names make the distinction apparent.

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, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, as the description correctly avoids inventing irrelevant parameter detail.

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 lists all VPN client configurations across six named protocols (PPTP/L2TP/OpenVPN/IPSec/IKEv2/WireGuard). It uses a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (VPN client configurations), and the scope ('所有/all') distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch individual client configs or server configs.

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?

The description implies this tool is for getting a complete overview of all VPN client types, while siblings like get_pptp_client_config serve specific protocols. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over the individual getters or mention any exclusion cases, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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