get_vpn_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects, permissions, or read-only guarantees. It only lists output contents (profiles, clients, health) without addressing whether the operation is safe, requires auth, or has rate limits. The 'get' prefix suggests read-only but is not explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant 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?

With no params and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output scope. It lists the key categories of information returned, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though more detail on response format could be beneficial.

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 no parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters and instead clarifies what status information is included, adding value.

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?

States the exact function 'Get VPN status' and lists supported VPN technologies (WireGuard, OpenVPN, VPN mesh). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_network_status, which target generic network status rather than VPN-specific details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the description implies it's the tool for VPN-related status, and no sibling tool directly covers VPN, so usage context is clear but not formally stated.

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