List WireGuard Interfaces

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, nondestructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'status', but doesn't elaborate on return format, pagination behavior, or potential errors. With good annotations, the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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: one sentence that front-loads the action, target, and scope. No redundant words, and every word contributes to clarity.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, without an output schema, it could mention expected return fields (e.g., interface name, status). The lack of details on pagination or empty results leaves minor gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for parameters (routerId, limit, offset). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists WireGuard interfaces and their status on a MikroTik router. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('WireGuard interfaces'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_interfaces (all interfaces) and list_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_interfaces for general interfaces or list_wireguard_peers for peers). The description fails to provide context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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