Get wg-easy server info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that secret fields (private keys, passwords) are redacted. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent important safety 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that first state the main purpose and then add the redaction behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key information categories (release/update status, settings, interface config) and the redaction behavior. It is slightly limited in not detailing the return format, but this is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description doesn't need to add anything here, which meets the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools.

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 purpose: to get information about the wg-easy instance, specifying categories such as release/update status, general settings, and WireGuard interface configuration. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all client-focused (list_clients, create_client, etc.).

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 it is for server-level information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than stated.

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