asuswrt_aiprotection_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does convey the useful behavioral hint that only non-secret signature versions are exposed and that it is a read-only inspection. It does not state whether the feature must be licensed/enabled, or what happens when AiProtection is unavailable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('non-secret') is the only modifier and it earns its place.

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 zero-arg, no-output-schema status tool the description is minimally sufficient, but since no output schema exists it would help to indicate the shape of the returned enablement/signature data (e.g. booleans, version strings). Currently the agent knows what it inspects but not what it should expect back.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No syntax or format detail is required.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Inspect') with a specific resource ('AiProtection feature enablement and non-secret DPI signature versions'), which clearly separates it from neighboring status tools like asuswrt_dns_filter_status or asuswrt_firewall_status. It is clear what the call returns, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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?

'Inspect' implies a read-only diagnostic call, so the usage mode is inferable, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other ~60 status tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but not directive.

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