ppp_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a crucial trait: returns an empty list, never an error, when no PPP server is configured or no sessions are active. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting an empty result as a failure.

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 tight sentences: the first describes content and scope, the second preempts the most likely confusion (empty results). Every sentence earns its place and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope and the empty-list behavior well. The only missing piece is any guidance on the device_name parameter, which is minor for a single required field.

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?

There is one parameter (device_name) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should ideally explain it. It does not explicitly define device_name, but for a single obvious required parameter this is a minor gap, and the baseline for a 1-param tool without description support is still reasonably high.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (active PPP sessions) and enumerates the returned fields (name, service, caller-id, address, uptime). It explicitly scopes to VPN server sessions connected to this device, which differentiates it from siblings like ppp_secrets or user_active.

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 clarifies the domain ('VPN server sessions currently connected'), which gives an agent clear context for when to reach for this tool. It does not, however, name alternative tools for related queries or state explicit exclusions.

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