wireguard_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 of behavioral disclosure. The [READ] tag signals non-destructive intent, but the description doesn't state whether this requires privileged access, what happens if the target is invalid, the format of returned data, or any rate/refresh characteristics. A [READ] tag is a bare minimum for transparency.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement and [READ] indicator. The parameter docstring is minimal and earns its place. Zero waste.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, given the read nature and the range of status siblings, it could briefly distinguish itself (e.g., noting it complements openvpn_sessions or that it shows handshake latency). The return format for the listed fields (connected state, last handshake, transfer) is unspecified, but many status tools rely on conventional return shapes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains 'target' as the Firewall target name from config, which goes beyond the schema's bare type declaration. It also clarifies the null/omit behavior ('omit for the default'). This adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter.

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 clearly states it lists WireGuard peers with connected state, last handshake, and transfer data. The [READ] prefix indicates a read operation. It's distinguishable from siblings like interface_status and openvpn_sessions since it specifically targets WireGuard peers.

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 notes the target parameter can be omitted for default, implying usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over other status tools (openvpn_sessions, ipsec_sas, interface_status) or provide exclusions/alternatives. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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