vpn_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Check status,' which implies a read operation but does not disclose output format, required permissions, side effects, or what 'status' includes. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the supported VPN types without redundancy, and earns its place fully.

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 description effectively communicates the tool's scope, but without an output schema it does not explain what status information is returned, any prerequisites, or potential errors. It is adequate for a simple parameterless tool but leaves gaps in completeness.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately says nothing about parameters, as there are none to document.

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 the action ('Check status') and resource ('all VPN connections'), and enumerates five specific VPN technologies. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool `fortigate_vpn_status`, which targets a specific vendor.

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 clear context by listing all supported VPN types, implying use for broad VPN status checks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool's name (`fortigate_vpn_status`) makes the differentiation apparent.

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