asuswrt_wireless_schedule_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation and 'sanitized ... without raw v2 schedule payloads' usefully discloses that output is redacted, which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether it can fail, or what the sanitized state actually contains.

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 tightly-packed sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and every clause earning its place. No filler.

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 simple zero-param status read this is adequate, and the sanitization note covers the main behavioral question. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the shape of the returned scheduling state entirely unspecified.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or obscure.

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 resource (per-radio Wi-Fi scheduling state) with a clear scope qualifier (sanitized, no raw v2 payloads). No sibling covers wireless scheduling, but the description doesn't invoke any sibling to sharpen the boundary, so it falls 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 explicit when-to-use guidance. The phrase 'without raw v2 schedule payloads' implies an alternative that returns raw payloads, but that alternative is never named and no condition for choosing this tool is given.

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