usb_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states this is a read, that either list may be empty, and that an absent menu/hardware returns empty lists rather than an error. It stops short of noting permission requirements, so not quite a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the union rationale, then the return shape. Sentences earn their place, though the return-format sentence partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained; the description instead supplies the non-error/empty-list behavior an agent needs. The only real omission is the unaddressed `device_name` parameter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter `device_name` is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer its meaning and format entirely from the property name.

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?

Names the specific resource (USB hardware), the exact menus it reads (`/system/routerboard/usb` and `/disk`), and explains the union because a device's menu depends on hardware. An agent can distinguish this from `lte_interfaces` or `interfaces` without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'combined into one read' rationale, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative named (there is no obvious sibling for USB enumeration anyway). Adequate minimum but with a clear gap.

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