wireguard_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: 'Secrets are masked.' The verb 'Show' signals read-only, and it enumerates the returned facets (handshake, traffic, endpoints, firewall). It stops short of permissions/rate-limit context, but adds genuine value beyond structured fields.

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?

One tightly packed sentence, front-loaded with the primary resource and using parentheticals that each carry substantive detail. Slightly dense, but no wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description helpfully enumerates them anyway. For a zero-required-param read tool this is close to complete; only the input parameter's meaning is left unaddressed.

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 single 'name' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never addresses it or its 'router' default. The parentheticals describe output, not the input, so nothing compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and precise resources: WireGuard interfaces, peers, and firewall per-port allowance. An agent can distinguish it from the mutating siblings (wireguard_create_interface, wireguard_add_peer), though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 read-only 'Show' framing implies diagnostic/inspection use before or after mutation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing (e.g., vs. router_overview or audit_security). Usage is left to inference.

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