List Vpn Clients

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully scopes the output to six protocol families (PPTP/L2TP/OpenVPN/IPSec/IKEv2/WireGuard), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether disabled configs are included; an output schema exists so return shape need not be repeated.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the protocol scope parenthetically. No filler, no restatement of the title, every token earns its place.

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 read-only list with annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete. The only shortfall is the lack of explicit routing to list_vpn_servers or the per-protocol getters, which a careful agent would otherwise have to infer from the sibling names.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent filtering options.

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 (列出/list) and resource (VPN 客户端配置/VPN client configs), and enumerates the covered protocols, which tells the agent exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_vpn_servers or the individual get_*_client_config tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 所有 ('all') implies this is the bulk-retrieval option versus the per-protocol get_pptp_client_config / get_l2tp_client_config / get_openvpn_client_config siblings, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage must be inferred from the sibling list rather than the description.

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