asuswrt_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. While 'Return' implies a read-only operation, there is no disclosure of potential side effects, required permissions, or performance implications, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation backing.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is not particularly informative and could be more specific. It is not wasteful, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity, earning a 4 rather than a perfect score.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It specifies three outputs (capabilities, guardrails, safe settings), but does not elaborate on format, granularity, or how these relate to other tools. It is minimally complete but lacking depth for complex decision-making.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'server capabilities, guardrails, and safe settings,' which indicates a read operation providing an overview. However, the terms are vague and do not distinguish it from sibling tools like asuswrt_health or asuswrt_system_stats, which may also return status information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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