get_vpn_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects, though the 'get_' prefix and status nature imply a safe read. No details about output size or pagination are given.

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 concise sentence that front-loads 'VPN status' and specifies its contents without any filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema present. The description adequately covers the scope of status information (IPsec tunnels and SSL-VPN sessions), but it does not mention usage context or any limitations. Given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both vdom and device parameters. The description adds no information about these parameters, but since the schema fully covers them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves VPN status, specifically IPsec tunnel states/traffic and active SSL-VPN sessions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_status or list_interfaces, which cover different domains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_status or list_interfaces. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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