asuswrt_vlan_guest_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: output is limited to redacted counts rather than full configuration. It omits auth requirements, whether any state is mutated, and what the counts represent.

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 wording is slightly terse ('redacted counts') but nothing is wasted.

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-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description is minimal but workable. Since there is no output schema, more detail about what the counts cover (VLAN IDs? guest SSIDs? client counts?) would help the agent interpret results.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The 'redacted counts only' note is relevant to output rather than parameters.

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 clear verb (Inspect) and specific resource (VLAN and guest segmentation state), which is distinguishable from the guest-focused siblings like asuswrt_guest_networks and asuswrt_guest_lan_access. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those overlapping guest-segmentation siblings.

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 phrase 'redacted counts only' implies this is the privacy-preserving alternative for segmentation checks, but no when-to-use condition or named alternative is given. The agent must infer when this tool is preferred over the guest_* siblings.

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