search_wireguard_tunnel_addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool supports filtering and pagination, which is consistent with the annotations and schema. However, it does not disclose additional behavior such as result limits, relationship to parent tunnel, or output shape—though the output schema exists to cover return values. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Search WireGuard tunnel addresses with filtering and pagination.' It states the verb and resource immediately with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary clauses. Every word contributes to meaning.

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?

With 4 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, an output schema present, and read-only annotations provided, the description covers the basics. However, it leaves the tool's relationship to sibling WireGuard tools unexplained—specifically the distinction between tunnel addresses and peer allowed IPs (search_wireguard_peer_allowed_ips), and the role of parent_id. This is adequate but has clear gaps for an AI agent choosing among many similar WireGuard tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (page, sort_by, page_size, parent_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' echoes these parameters without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify the semantics of parent_id (e.g., whether it refers to a tunnel ID) or sort_by values beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Search') with a specific resource ('WireGuard tunnel addresses'), and the plural 'addresses' distinguishes it from the singular manage_wireguard_tunnel_address and from search_wireguard_peers/search_wireguard_tunnels. However, it does not explicitly state what 'tunnel addresses' refers to or name the alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that manage_wireguard_tunnel_address handles modifications, that search_wireguard_peer_allowed_ips covers peer allowed IPs, or when to prefer this search over related WireGuard queries. The only hint is 'filtering and pagination,' which implies a list/search context but is not an explicit usage directive.

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