pm_wifi_quick_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'triage' and analysis topics but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, resource-intensive, or what the output format is. It fails to adequately compensate for the lack of 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, focused sentence that front-loads key information. It is concise and efficient, but its brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter details.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it still leaves gaps: no parameter documentation, no usage context, and no behavioral details. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but not 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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (file_path, rssi_threshold). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the AI agent to guess their purpose.

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 it's for 802.11 monitor-mode triage, listing specific analysis areas (retries, mgmt frames, security, roaming, top BSSIDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pm_wired_quick_scan (wired) and pm_wifi_roaming_analysis (roaming-specific).

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 implies usage for quick Wi-Fi triage but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements are provided.

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