openwisp_get_vpn

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP verb GET and the endpoint path, which usefully signals a read-only, idempotent retrieval and a single-resource lookup by ID. It says nothing about auth/permissions, error behavior for a missing ID, or response shape, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

One compact sentence with the category prefix and endpoint reference; it is front-loaded on the verb and resource. The endpoint fragment is arguably redundant but is short and costs nothing.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the minimum: what it fetches and by what key. It omits what a VPN detail object contains and how it differs from the VPN configuration sibling, which would be needed for confident routing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is already documented as 'VPN UUID or ID'. The description adds no format, accepted-value, or lookup-semantics detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Get VPN details' for a specific VPN. However, it does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling openwisp_get_vpn_configuration, so an agent cannot tell from the description which of the two returns configuration versus VPN metadata.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is given. The description never mentions related tools such as openwisp_list_vpns (for discovery) or openwisp_get_vpn_configuration (for config), leaving the agent to infer selection.

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