asuswrt_storage_usage

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Inspect,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavioral implications.

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, concise and to the point. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include basic return value context without losing conciseness.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide information about the return value (e.g., what data is reported, format). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. The description is too minimal for a tool with no other structural cues.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). As per scoring guidelines, no parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there is none to add.

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 'Inspect storage/filesystem usage reported by the router' clearly states the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like asuswrt_mounts or asuswrt_partitions, though it could be more specific about what aspect of usage (e.g., capacity, inodes).

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 alternatives. There are no context signals, examples, or mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer usage solely from the brief description.

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