asuswrt_kernel_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool inspects loaded kernel modules via lsmod, implying a read-only operation. No detailed behavior like permissions or side effects is mentioned, but for a simple inspection tool, this is adequate.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and the source (lsmod). It could optionally mention the return format or that it's read-only, but overall it is complete enough.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the action 'Inspect' and the specific resource 'loaded kernel modules reported by lsmod', distinguishing it from sibling tools like asuswrt_system_stats or asuswrt_service_processes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, due to the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, inspection only), the lack of explicit guidance is less critical. Still, it could mention that it is for diagnostic purposes.

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