asuswrt_dns_privacy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: output is limited to 'redacted rule counts only,' warning the agent not to expect rule contents. It says nothing about permissions, whether the device must be reachable, or the response shape, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentence with no filler; the output-restriction clause ('redacted rule counts only') is placed where it matters, immediately after the scope.

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-parameter read-only inspection tool this covers the essentials (what is inspected, and that results are aggregated counts). It lacks any sibling disambiguation and there is no output schema, so an agent still cannot predict the returned fields.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. A baseline 3 is appropriate for a no-argument inspection tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and a precise resource ('DNS-over-TLS and DNSSEC posture'), which is enough to separate it from asuswrt_dns_config and asuswrt_dns_filter_status by subject matter. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the two obvious alternatives (asuswrt_dns_config, asuswrt_dns_filter_status) are never mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the privacy-posture check versus the general DNS configuration or filtering checks.

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