get_vpn_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does say what the caller gets back: ready files plus in-app instructions. It doesn't discuss side effects, but a help/reference tool has little to disclose beyond its content.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The trailing 'also shows the instructions in the app' slightly overlaps with 'with ready files' but stays within a useful length.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the content delivered and the condition for calling it. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly appears to be missing.

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 declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Omitting any parameter talk is appropriate rather than a gap.

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 states a concrete deliverable — VPN bypass guidance for two named services (MIREA and MTS Link), including ready-made config files and in-app instructions. That distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_settings or repair, though the verb ('provides/returns') is left implicit.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when check_health says vpn_suspected,' routing the agent from a sibling tool's output directly to this one. It doesn't name a when-not condition or an alternative remedy, but for a single-purpose help tool that trigger is nearly sufficient.

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