wireguard_interfaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that RouterOS returns a private-key which is always stripped via a named mechanism, that a private-key never leaves the process, and that empty results are returned instead of errors, citing a test. It stops short of stating read-only status explicitly or pagination/permission behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by well-organized security and empty-list notes. It is somewhat verbose, naming internal functions and a test, but each block carries real information rather than filler.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the notable behaviors an agent needs (field set, sensitive-field stripping, never-error empty list). The one gap is the undocumented device_name parameter, which the schema also leaves blank.

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% for the single required parameter device_name, so the description must compensate and it does not — device_name is never explained (which device, format, or how it is resolved). The field list describes outputs, not the input parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list WireGuard tunnel interfaces at /interface/wireguard) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from wireguard_peers by naming that sibling and its different subject matter (peers vs interfaces).

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?

Usage is implied by 'List ... interfaces' and the empty-list convention is clarified, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as wireguard_peers or add_wireguard_interface. The reference to wireguard_peers is about the security mechanism, not about selecting between the two tools.

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