List VPN servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that results are limited to the current site, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what a VPN server record contains. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is padded, yet nothing is elaborated.

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 list tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain paging and filter behavior and what fields a VPN server record exposes. Only the site scoping is conveyed, leaving the agent guessing about how to page through or narrow results.

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?

All three parameters (limit, filter, offset) have zero schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing — no filter syntax, no default or maximum page size, no offset meaning. The description does not compensate for a 0% coverage gap at all.

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 names a specific resource (VPN servers) and scopes it to the current site, which implicitly separates it from the sibling unifi_net_list_site_to_site_vpn tunnels. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly call out the sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives; the nearest sibling, unifi_net_list_site_to_site_vpn, is never named. The only guidance is the implicit site scope, which the agent must infer.

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