unifi_list_vpn_tunnels

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it discloses that results are tunnel definitions per row and flags that the per-row schema is not rendered in the current docs, advising an inspection call. This is valuable context even though pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the scope, the second explains the return shape and docs caveat, and the third routes to the appropriate sibling tool.

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 full schema coverage, a safe read-only annotation profile, and a declared output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the scope, and the relevant alternative.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only the contextual notion of 'at a site,' which maps to the required siteId parameter, but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('site-to-site VPN tunnels'), further specifying the tunnel types (IPsec, WireGuard, OpenVPN site-to-site) and scope ('at a site'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from unifi_list_vpn_servers, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states this tool is for site-to-site tunnels and explicitly points to unifi_list_vpn_servers for roaming client VPN servers. This gives an agent a direct decision rule for choosing between the two related tools.

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