Get WireGuard client QR code

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

The description discloses that the QR code encodes the client private key and explicitly warns to treat it as a secret, providing critical security context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also specifies the output format as SVG markup, which is useful behavioral information.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and output format, the second delivers a necessary security warning. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it returns (SVG QR code), why it is used (mobile app scanning), and a critical sensitivity warning. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of the return format.

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 only parameter, clientId, is fully described in the schema with type, range, and a reference to list_clients. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 it retrieves the client configuration as a QR code in SVG markup for use with the WireGuard mobile app. The specific verb 'Get' plus the resource 'client QR code' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client_config, which returns plain configuration text.

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 phrase 'for scanning with the WireGuard mobile app' provides clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, e.g., versus get_client_config, so it slightly misses the top score.

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