asuswrt_ssh_diagnostics

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

The description discloses the three diagnostic aspects (TCP reachability, banner exchange, authentication) but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as side effects, safety, or failure modes. Since there are no annotations, the description partially fulfills the transparency burden, but more detail would be beneficial.

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 with no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the three diagnostic areas. It lacks return value details, but for a diagnostics tool with no input, the context is adequate to understand the tool's function.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the tool beyond the empty schema, confirming what the tool will test. For a parameterless tool, baseline is 4, and the description meets it.

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 diagnoses SSH TCP reachability, banner exchange, and authentication. It uses a specific verb ('diagnose') and resource ('SSH'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover different aspects of ASUSWRT diagnostics.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the generic verb 'diagnose'.

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