get_wireguard_peer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond that; the peer_id format note is more about parameter syntax than runtime behavior. 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 purpose statement plus one compact note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The structure front-loads the main action and then addresses an important input nuance.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the most critical aspect (peer_id format) and the overall purpose. The main gap is the undocumented device parameter, but since it is optional with a default, this is a minor omission. Overall, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It clarifies peer_id format ('*N' or 'N' from list output, e.g., '*2'), which is helpful, but it completely omits the device parameter, leaving one parameter undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Gets detailed information about a specific WireGuard peer by ID.' The verb 'Gets' and resource 'specific WireGuard peer' distinguish it from sibling tools like list_wireguard_peers, which lists peers. The note about peer_id format further reinforces the specific target.

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 context by noting that peer_id comes from list output, suggesting a typical workflow of listing first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool over others, leaving usage guidance largely implied.

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