list_vpn_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It fully explains the pagination mechanics: offset-paginated, default page size 25, auto-drain all pages, return shape {data, totalCount}, manual page override, and incomplete flag for capped drains. This is rich, precise behavioral information that goes well beyond the schema and 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies parameter formats, and the third explains pagination behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 list operation with an output schema, the description covers all essentials: parameters, default behavior, manual override, return shape, and edge case (capped drain). It is self-contained and gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without additional lookup. The presence of an output schema further supports completeness, though the description already mentions the return structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so effectively: host is explained as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' and site as 'site name or ID'. Offset and limit semantics are conveyed through the pagination explanation ('Pass offset or limit for a single manual page'). This gives an agent enough understanding to select and populate parameters correctly.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'List VPN servers for a site.' It specifies the scope (site) and differentiates from sibling tools like get_vpn_server and create_vpn_server by making the list action and target explicit. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 on pagination behavior: default drains all pages, manual page with offset/limit, and a flagged incomplete drain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is unambiguous and the pagination guidance is directly actionable. The absence of explicit sibling comparisons is a minor gap, so a 4 rather than 5.

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