analyze_medical_wireless

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lacks information on whether the tool is read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, or side effects. The 'defense' mode likely modifies settings, but this is not stated.

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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose and mode structure. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (modes, parameter dependencies). It lacks return value or error details, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand core functionality.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by logically grouping parameters with modes (e.g., deployment for defense, device_type for assess/attacks, wireless_protocol for assess), providing context beyond the schema's simple 'required for' labels.

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 defines it as a unified medical wireless security tool with three distinct modes (assess, attacks, defense), each briefly explained. This differentiates it from sibling tools that are focused on specific protocols or general wireless security.

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 medical wireless contexts through the title and scope, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_zigbee. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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