Get WireGuard client configuration

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description aligns with a read operation ('Get'). It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the wg .conf format and, importantly, that the output includes the private key, which signals sensitivity beyond the read-only hint.

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 concise—one sentence of 16 words—and front-loads the action and resource. It includes the format and private key without extraneous detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value; it does so by stating the wg .conf format and private key. For a simple read operation with one parameter, this is mostly complete, though it omits response encoding or error conditions.

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 100% for clientId, which is well-described as 'Numeric ID of the client (see list_clients)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'for a client', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Get the WireGuard configuration file (wg .conf format, including the private key) for a client.' This clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (client's WireGuard config), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_client_qrcode and get_client by focusing on the config file with private key.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternative comparisons are given. The description implies use when needing the client config file, but it does not differentiate from get_client or get_client_qrcode. The schema's reference to list_clients is parameter-oriented, not usage context.

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