vpn_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait beyond the schema: the tool reads existing state only and requires a prior manual web login at /vpn. It does not say what happens when no session exists, whether an error or empty list is returned, or how the result is shaped.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary output (SSL VPN session status) and appends the secondary output and the login precondition. No filler, no redundancy; a slightly clearer separation of the two returned data sets would be the only improvement.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs to know the returned fields and failure modes, and those are only sketched ('session status' and 'intranet resource list'). What is present is accurate and useful, particularly the manual-login prerequisite, but the description stops short of describing the 'intranet resources' 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description's remaining job is to convey what the fixed request returns, which it does at a high level (session status plus intranet resources).

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 names a specific resource and state (SSL VPN session status) plus a second output (intranet resource list), which is far more specific than the bare name 'vpn_status'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling tool, though none of the listed siblings appear to overlap with VPN functionality.

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 parenthetical '需在网页 /vpn 手动登录过' implies a prerequisite, giving the agent a usage condition for when this tool will return useful data. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, but no sibling tool covers VPN sessions, so the gap is minor.

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