scan_wlan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-trivial behavior of returning 'needsSelection' with candidates instead of scanning, and the namespace-awareness and auto-selection of monitor adapter. It also explains the detail parameter values. It doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive, but 'scan' implies read-only; the key behavioral quirks are covered.

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 moderately sized but well-structured: a one-line purpose, then the selection behavior, follow-up, and a clean Args list. Each sentence adds value, and the critical selection quirk is front-loaded. It's slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 (non-trivial selection flow, 4 optional params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what triggers 'needsSelection', how to proceed, and parameter meanings. It doesn't describe the normal return structure, but that's covered by the output schema. It's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. The 'Args' section explains all four parameters: interface (with auto-selection), namespace (optional), include_hidden (purpose), and detail (enum meanings). It adds meaning well beyond the bare schema, including default behavior and example value for interface.

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 states 'Scan for Wi-Fi networks.' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing namespace awareness and monitor adapter selection, and the follow-up to create/activate network configs ties it to a distinct workflow. No other sibling does a raw scan; capture_scan is for capture sessions, so purpose is 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?

It provides explicit instructions for the multi-adapter scenario: if multiple monitor adapters exist and no interface is given, it returns 'needsSelection' and instructs to call again with a candidate interface. It also names the follow-up tools (create_network_config / activate_network_config) for connecting. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_wifi_capabilities, but the usage context is clear for when to use this scan.

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