get_wireguard_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the main safety profile. The description adds the word 'current' to indicate it retrieves the live state, which is a minor behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose any other behavior such as whether the response is cached or what 'service settings' encapsulates beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations; the added value is minimal.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word 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 zero parameters, the existence of an output schema, and annotations declaring it a read-only operation, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does, and the structured data fills in the return format and safety details. There are no gaps that would impede an agent from selecting and invoking the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current WireGuard service settings'), clearly indicating this is a read-only retrieval of the WireGuard service configuration. It distinguishes from siblings like update_wireguard_settings and search_wireguard_tunnels by focusing on service-level settings rather than modifications or tunnel-specific data.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read counterpart to update_wireguard_settings or state any exclusions. Usage is only implicitly conveyed by the verb 'Get', which falls short of the rubric's requirement for clear context or alternatives.

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