start_profiler

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that it brings up a fake AP and captures association frames, and mentions a passive mode (noAP). However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., network disruption), prerequisites (root, interface configuration), and whether the operation is blocking or long-running. This is a moderate disclosure but lacks depth.

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 efficient: a short introductory paragraph followed by a bulleted list of arguments. It is front-loaded with purpose and mechanism. No fluff, but the argument list could be slightly more compact; overall it is well-structured and earns its length.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks key context: prerequisites like interface mode or root privileges, whether the profiler runs in the background, how to retrieve results, and how to stop it (though stop_profiler exists as a sibling). Given the complexity of an action tool with 11 optional parameters, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. Each parameter is listed with a brief, meaningful explanation, such as 'no11r: Disable 802.11r (Fast BSS Transition) support' and 'frequency: Frequency in MHz (alternative to channel)'. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not explain default behaviors or interactions between parameters.

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: starting the wlanpi-profiler to capture 802.11 client capability information. It distinguishes itself from siblings like stop_profiler and get_profiler_status by describing the action and its result. The mechanism (bringing up a fake AP) is explicit.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies it is for capturing client capabilities, but does not mention conditions such as requiring a monitor-mode interface or that it should be stopped with stop_profiler. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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