asuswrt_web_admin

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies read-only, but no details are given about potential side effects, permissions, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 of seven words, which is concise and front-loaded. It communicates the core purpose without verbosity, earning its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the basic purpose. However, it omits details about the output format or structure, which the agent might need to interpret results. It is minimally adequate.

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 input schema is complete. The description mentions the subject of inspection (ports and processes), which is consistent. Baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines for no 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 states 'Inspect web admin ports and related web processes,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'asuswrt_admin_access,' which may have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'asuswrt_admin_access' or other inspection tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites or suitability.

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