websex_kismet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses invocation semantics: kismet is executed directly with argv tokens and shell parsing is never used, which tells the agent about argument handling and injection safety. It omits operationally important traits for a wireless sniffer — monitor-mode/privilege requirements, that it is likely long-running, and how output is produced.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the execution detail and path guidance. No filler, though the namespace/path sentences could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a wireless-sniffing CLI wrapper with no annotations anywhere, the description should mention prerequisites like monitor mode or privileges and the long-running nature of capture — omissions that materially affect correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'supplied argv tokens' clarifies that arguments are raw CLI tokens and 'use relative paths' addresses working_directory. But stdin and engagement_id are left completely unexplained, so two of four parameters remain ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run kismet from the WebSex wireless toolkit,' making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish kismet from the many other wireless siblings (aircrack, airodump, aireplay, airmon), so an agent has no criteria for choosing it over them.

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?

Provides some usage context — it runs from the selected engagement namespace and engagement artifacts should use relative paths. But it gives no when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. kismet vs airodump for wireless capture), which is where the real selection ambiguity lies among the wireless siblings.

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