asuswrt_dns_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'inspect', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output characteristics. Behavioral transparency is 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous wording. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a simple inspection tool. However, it could be slightly more detailed about what specific DNS settings are reported (e.g., server IPs, search domains), but this does not significantly hinder understanding.

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, there is no need to explain parameters. Baseline according to instructions is 4, and the description suffices without adding param info.

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 verb 'inspect' and the resource 'WAN and LAN DNS settings reported by NVRAM', making the tool's purpose very specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like DHCP, WAN details, or connectivity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other DNS-related tools or any alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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