get_wireguard_client_config

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not describe return format, authentication needs, or any side effects, but the annotation already conveys that this is a safe read operation. No contradiction exists.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and avoids any fluff.

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's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists, read-only annotation), the description is adequate. It could be slightly more explicit about the scope of the configuration, but the name and description together sufficiently convey the tool's purpose.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description has no need to add parameter details.

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 '获取 WireGuard 客户端配置' clearly states the tool retrieves WireGuard client configuration. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the protocol name distinguishes it from sibling VPN client config getters such as PPTP, L2TP, OpenVPN, IPsec, and IKEv2.

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 alternative VPN client config tools. It simply states what it does without context on selection criteria or exclusions, so the usage guidance is minimal.

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