asuswrt_admin_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'inspect' correctly indicates a read-only operation, but no further behavioral traits are mentioned (e.g., authentication requirements, side effects, or what happens if settings are unavailable). The description is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 9 words with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded with the verb and effectively conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary.

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?

Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does (inspect settings). It is complete for a simple read-only inspection tool. The agent can infer that the output will be the current settings.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no need for the description to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not add param information, which is acceptable.

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 uses the specific verb 'inspect' and clearly identifies the resource ('web, SSH, and telnet administrative access settings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asuswrt_web_admin (which focuses on web admin) or asuswrt_ssh_diagnostics (SSH diagnostics). It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the scope is implied, there is no explicit mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For example, it does not clarify if this should be used before modifying access settings or if it overlaps with other inspection tools.

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