unifi_list_vpn_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ('id, type, name, enabled, metadata.origin') and example enum values ('WIREGUARD, UID'), which helps the agent anticipate output beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the resource scope and return shape with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every element (protocols, site scope, return fields) earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a required siteId, a well-documented schema, and an output schema present, the description is fully adequate. It explains what is listed, where, and the salient output characteristics. No missing detail would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; 'at a site' merely restates the siteId purpose already present in the schema. It does not clarify the filter expression format or pagination subtleties, but those are already documented.

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 opens with the verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'VPN servers' with clarifying qualifiers ('roaming/client-access VPNs: WireGuard, OpenVPN, L2TP, Teleport'), which precisely distinguishes this from site-to-site VPN tunnel tools. It further enumerates the returned fields, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'roaming/client-access VPNs' gives clear context about the intended scope (client-access, not site-to-site), and 'at a site' ties directly to the required siteId parameter. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., unifi_list_vpn_tunnels) for site-to-site VPNs, so the guidance is clear on scope but lacks explicit exclusions.

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