monitor_vpn_ipsec

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('get status') but does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential impact. It does specify the scope ('all tunnels') and return data, which is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key output fields. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, read-only), the description is largely complete. It specifies what is returned and the scope ('all tunnels'). It could mention VDOM filtering but the schema covers that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter (vdom), including a clear description. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool gets status of all IPsec VPN tunnels, listing specific metrics (up/down, bytes transferred, SAs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_vpn_ipsec_tunnel_down and monitor_vpn_ipsec_tunnel_up, which focus on specific tunnel states.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage, and there is no mention of when not to use it or which use cases are better served by other tools.

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