asuswrt_usb_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait — output is sanitized and omits device paths/identifiers — but does not state read-only safety, permissions required, or any side effects.

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 where every clause names a covered resource or the sanitization constraint. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 overview tool with no output schema, listing the inspected domains and sanitization policy is largely sufficient. A brief note on return shape or known coverage limits would make it fully 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters to misinterpret, and the description adds no conflicting parameter guidance.

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 ('Inspect') and concrete resources (USB/storage partitions, mounts, filesystems, disk-monitor health). It does not name sibling tools like asuswrt_partitions or asuswrt_mounts, though the 'without device paths or identifiers' clause implies a sanitized overview distinct from detailed tools.

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?

Provides an implied usage condition: use this when sanitized output without device paths or identifiers is acceptable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer it over detailed sibling tools such as asuswrt_partitions or asuswrt_mounts.

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