List HTB VPN Servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the results are live, VIP/VIP+/dedicated pools are included, the assigned server is ordered first, and the static mode requires no API key (an auth requirement). It stops short of covering pagination or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the returned columns, then the parameter caveats. The compact 'Rows: id, name, group, location, clients, full, assigned' uses no wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the row fields. Combined with the default pool, static-mode auth note, and result ordering, an agent has everything needed to call this 2-param read tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (static, product enum) are already documented with defaults and enum values in the schema. The description's 'needs NO API key' and product-pool defaults only lightly extend the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 + resource + scope: 'List the VPN servers the account can use', and further narrows it with 'live (includes VIP/VIP+/dedicated pools)'. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like htb_vpn_status, htb_vpn_switch, and htb_vpn_download, and it even names the columns returned.

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 explains the 'static=true' mode condition ('offline alias table... needs NO API key') and the default pool, which implies when each mode applies. However, it never states when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as htb_vpn_status or htb_vpn_download, so usage routing is only implied.

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