wireguard_peers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the read-only field set, defensively strips private-key/preshared-key, and specifies the empty-list-not-error convention for devices lacking the WireGuard package. It omits auth/permission requirements and pagination behavior, keeping it short of 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 critical content (what it lists, the security stripping, empty-list behavior) is front-loaded, but the middle section is bloated with internal references such as formatting.WIREGUARD_SENSITIVE_FIELDS and test-function names that don't help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't strictly required, yet the description still enumerates fields and fully covers security and the empty-result edge case. The only real gap is the unaddressed device_name argument.

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 device_name parameter, so the description must compensate, and it never mentions device_name or its expected format/source. The self-explanatory title 'Device Name' partly mitigates, but the description adds no semantic value over the bare schema.

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 VPN peers') plus the exact RouterOS menu path and the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wireguard_interfaces ('only /interface/wireguard - the tunnel interfaces themselves - carries one; see wireguard_interfaces below'), so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 gives clear context for when this applies (enumerating configured peers on a device) and points to wireguard_interfaces as the adjacent sibling holding tunnel-level data. It does not, however, state explicit usage conditions or exclusions for choosing among the read-only listing tools.

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