Get WireGuard client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. The phrase 'full details' adds some behavioral context about return scope, but there is no mention of error behavior or what happens if the client doesn't exist, which is a minor gap.

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?

A single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description and schema together cover the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the read-only safety via annotations. Lacking an output schema, 'full details' is somewhat vague, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter (clientId) with a clear description including a pointer to list_clients. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), identifies the resource ('single WireGuard client'), and clearly conveys scope ('full details'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_clients (list all), create/update/delete (mutations), and get_client_config/qrcode (specific representations).

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 one client's full details, which sets clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling names (list_clients, get_client_config) make the fitting use case obvious.

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