asuswrt_dual_wan_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only inspection and clearly discloses that WAN addresses and policy payloads are omitted, but it does not state authentication needs, rate limits, or read-only status explicitly.

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 wasted words. The scope and exclusions are stated efficiently.

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 no-parameter status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description communicates the inspected area and what is omitted. It does not describe return fields, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, the definition is largely complete.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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'), resource ('Dual-WAN selection and uplink health'), and explicitly excludes WAN addresses and policy payloads, distinguishing it from siblings like asuswrt_wan_details and asuswrt_policy_routing. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the exclusion of WAN addresses and policy payloads: use this when you need only Dual-WAN selection and uplink health, not full WAN details or routing rules. However, no alternatives are named and no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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