Get Wireguard Client Config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether the returned WireGuard configuration contains secrets or requires special permissions.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It is essentially the title translated, so it is concise but not especially informative.

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 zero-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description states the core purpose adequately. It could still do more to differentiate from sibling VPN client config tools, but the structured fields carry much of the remaining burden.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4; the description neither needs nor provides additional parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (WireGuard 客户端配置/WireGuard client config). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling VPN client config getters such as get_openvpn_client_config, get_pptp_client_config, or get_l2tp_client_config.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives identified among the many similar VPN/config getters. Usage is only implied by the tool name and read-only annotation.

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