vpn_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden; it does disclose the key trait of being read-only, implying no side effects. However, it does not describe what the output represents or whether any background/network state is queried, leaving operational behavior only partially transparent.

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 phrase with no filler and is easy to scan. It is perhaps too terse, but it is not padded; for a zero-parameter command this length is acceptable.

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 no output schema and no annotation context, the description should clarify what 'VPN graph status' actually returns and how the 'graph' should be interpreted. It does neither, so an agent invoking this tool cannot anticipate the response shape or semantics.

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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies: no schema omissions need compensating.

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 identifies the resource ('VPN graph') and an outcome ('status'), and marks the call as read-only, but it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'show' and does not differentiate 'graph status' from sibling VPN tools. 'Graph' is ambiguous, so an agent can only partially infer what this tool returns.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose vpn_graph over the many sibling VPN and status tools, nor any excluded scenarios. The description simply labels the command and gives no decision context.

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