analyze_pmkid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' commands but does not clarify whether it executes them or merely outputs strings. Additionally, it omits any mention of prerequisites, permissions, or side effects, leaving behavioral traits partially unclear.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('PMKID attack analysis') and immediately lists the three modes and related tools. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the three modes and the general purpose, but it lacks any mention of the output format (e.g., text, structured data, command lines). Without an output schema, the agent is left to infer what the tool returns. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this is a notable gap in completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'optimized settings' but does not detail which parameters are relevant per mode. The schema already describes each parameter, so the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 it is for PMKID attack analysis, lists three specific modes (assess, capture commands, crack commands) and mentions exact tools (hcxdumptool, hashcat). This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks which cover broader or different attack vectors.

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 three modes explicitly guide usage: assess feasibility, get capture commands, or get cracking commands. While it does not compare directly to sibling tools, the mode enumeration makes clear when each function is appropriate, providing sufficient context for an agent to decide.

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