list_vpn_servers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond confirming it lists statuses—no mention of output structure, pagination, or other behavioral traits. It does not contradict the annotation, but also fails to add meaningful transparency beyond the structured hint.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the purpose directly and efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, readOnly annotation, and an output schema), the description sufficiently covers the necessary information. It clearly states the scope ('all VPN server statuses') without requiring further elaboration, though it could optionally mention that it covers different VPN types.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, and there is no additional parameter information to add.

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 'List all VPN server statuses' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (VPN server statuses), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pptp_server_config (configuration retrieval) and toggle_vpn_server (state change). It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pptp_server_config or list_vpn_clients. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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