analyze_airgap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'composite' and lists modes, but does not mention behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or output size. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists modes efficiently. Structure is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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 (composite with multiple modes and 6 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter dependencies (e.g., which parameters apply to which modes) or hint at the return format, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents each parameter's enums and descriptions. The tool description only elaborates on the mode parameter, not the others or their interdependencies.

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 domain (air-gap exfiltration analysis) and lists the four modes (techniques, assess, detect, defense), providing specific verb+resource for each. It distinguishes from the wireless-focused sibling tools by explicitly focusing on air-gap scenarios.

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 when to use each mode, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, though the domain difference from siblings is implied.

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