reaver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'brute-force attack' and output progress, which conveys the aggressive, long-running nature. However, it omits potential side effects like AP lockout or detection risk, and does not mention prerequisites like monitor mode (though the schema implies it). The description is honest but not exhaustive.

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, front-loading the core purpose and usage, then providing the alternative. The output note is appended. It is well-structured with no redundancy, earning a 4 for efficiency.

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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and output. It lacks caveats about the attack being time-consuming, potentially triggering AP lockouts, or needing physical proximity. These omissions could affect an agent's expectation of runtime or side effects, making the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already documents all parameters (interface, bssid, channel, opts). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, such as option syntax or expected formats, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a WPS brute-force attack tool that exploits the WPS PIN vulnerability to recover WPA/WPA2 passphrases. It distinguishes itself from wifite by specifying that wifite handles full WiFi attack automation including handshake capture, making the purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the target AP has WPS enabled') and provides an explicit alternative for other scenarios ('For full WiFi attack automation including WPA handshake capture, use wifite'). This gives the agent clear routing guidance.

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