asuswrt_vpn_client_status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the redaction profile ('without credentials, endpoints, or peer details') and the aggregate nature of the return, but 'Inspect' only implies read-only and it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 that packs the verb, the three data categories, and the privacy scope with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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-param read with no annotations or output schema, the description sketches the return contents (counts, slot/runtime health, policy counts) reasonably well, but omits the sibling differentiation and behavioral guarantees (read-only, permissions) an agent would want.

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 and the schema baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 a concrete resource set: VPN client counts, WireGuard slot/runtime health, and VPN Fusion policy counts. This is distinguishable from generic siblings like asuswrt_vpn_overview or asuswrt_wireguard_client, but the description never names those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.

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 only implied by the name and the 'status/counts' framing; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over asuswrt_vpn_overview, asuswrt_wireguard_client, or asuswrt_vpn_server. An agent must infer the routing from the sanitized-count scope.

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