WireGuard status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as that it runs `wg show` and flags stale handshakes, which helps the agent understand the tool's side effects and output characteristics.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key action ('Reads WireGuard interfaces and peers'), and provides essential details without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields (handshake recency, endpoints, allowed-IPs, transfer) and flags stale handshakes. It is complete enough for a read-only status tool with simple output.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output data (handshake recency, endpoints, allowed-IPs, transfer), which goes beyond the empty schema. For a tool with no parameters, a baseline of 4 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 it reads WireGuard interfaces and peers via `wg show`, specifying fields like handshake recency, endpoints, allowed-IPs, and transfer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wg_peer_add or wg_peer_remove, which modify WireGuard configuration.

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 states 'Read-only' and 'Flags peers with stale handshakes,' indicating it is used for checking WireGuard status. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., net_ping, net_diagnose) implies it is for WireGuard-specific status, not general network diagnostics.

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