List Vpn Servers

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds only the scoping word 'all' (全部服务端), implying an aggregate listing rather than per-protocol detail, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or ordering. Modest added value over the annotation.

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 clause with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, annotations cover the read-only profile, and there are no parameters to explain. The definition is adequate for a simple no-arg list tool, though a note on how server states are reported or how it relates to the per-protocol getters would round it out.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4 by rule. No syntax or format detail is needed or missing.

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 clear verb (列出/list) plus resource (VPN 服务端) plus the aspect queried (状态/status), which is more specific than a bare name restatement. It distinguishes itself reasonably from the get_*_server_config siblings that fetch per-protocol config, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the aggregate status list while get_pptp_server_config/get_l2tp_server_config/get_openvpn_server_config fetch a single protocol's configuration. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is stated.

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