analyze_deauth

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does 'get attack commands' imply execution? Are changes made to the system?). Lacks clarity on whether it is read-only or potentially destructive.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. Each phrase adds distinct information (tool purpose, four modes). Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain how parameters map to modes (e.g., which params are needed for 'analyze'). The schema provides some detail, but the description lacks integration. Adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description that adds meaning (e.g., 'for detect mode'). The description enumerates modes but adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool is for 'Deauthentication attack analysis and defense' and lists four specific modes (analyze feasibility, generate detection rules, get attack commands, recommend defenses). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_wifi_attacks (general discovery) and analyze_wifi_security (broader security analysis).

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 deauth-specific tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_wifi_attacks or analyze_wifi_security. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites mentioned.

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