kali_wireless_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this is for reconnaissance, exploitation, or other actions, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or output format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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, efficient phrase with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a high-level category, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's domain.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly in a context with many sibling tools.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining tool options or interface requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Wireless network analysis tools' states the general domain but lacks specificity about what the tool actually does (e.g., scanning, attacking, monitoring). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_sniffing_spoofing', which could overlap in wireless contexts. The purpose is vague rather than clearly defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'kali_network_scan' and 'kali_sniffing_spoofing' that might handle wireless tasks, the description offers no context for selection. Usage is implied only by the name and general category.

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