aircrack_ng

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behaviors. It states that the tool 'cracks' keys (implying intensive computation), requires specific capture conditions, and that the output is the cracked password. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like the need for sufficient IVs (mentioned but not quantified) or that running this tool may be illegal without permission—though that's context not necessarily required. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage conditions and alternatives. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff.

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 that the tool is complex (requires specific capture files) but has 100% schema coverage and an output schema is absent, the description covers the essential prerequisites (handshake/IVs), the role of wordlist, and the output. It doesn't mention failure cases (e.g., password not found) or time expectations, but for a security tool, this is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the wordlist is required for WPA cracking and that without it only WEP works. It also gives an example of the opts parameter. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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's purpose: cracking WiFi keys (WEP, WPA/WPA2-PSK, WPA3) from captured traffic, and specifies the required input (a .cap file with handshake/IVs). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools (wifite, reaver).

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?

It provides explicit conditions for use (requires a .cap with 4-way handshake for WPA, etc.) and names alternatives (wifite for automating, reaver for WPS attacks). This helps the agent decide when to choose this tool over siblings.

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