get_wireguard_interface

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description aligns with that. However, it adds no new behavioral context such as what 'detailed information' includes, any error conditions, or the effect on the system. With annotations present, the description fails to go beyond them.

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 with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool and quickly conveys the core function.

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?

While there is an output schema to cover return values, the 0% schema description coverage and the unexplained optional 'device' parameter make the description inadequate for a complete understanding. The description gives no guidance on how to select the interface or what differentiates a successful call from an error.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('name' or 'device'). The schema itself provides no descriptions beyond types and defaults, so the description must compensate but does not. This leaves the purpose of the 'device' parameter completely unexplained.

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 'Gets' with a clearly identified resource 'a specific WireGuard interface', which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wireguard_interfaces that list all interfaces. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 implies usage for retrieving details of one interface, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_wireguard_interfaces or get_wireguard_peer. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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