openwisp_list_vpns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method GET, which implies a safe read-only operation—a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits pagination, authentication requirements, return format, and rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a list endpoint.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core action ('List VPN resources'), and includes only the category tag and HTTP endpoint as supplementary context. Every element is relevant and no sentence is wasted.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and HTTP method. However, it lacks any mention of authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the response contains, which would be helpful given zero annotation coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four filter parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (VPN resources), and includes the HTTP endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_vpn or delete_vpn by the verb, but does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate further.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the resource name.

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