analyze_wifi_csi

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a 'composite tool' and lists modes, but does not describe side effects, network activity, hardware requirements, or result types. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the key information front-loaded. It wastes no words, but could benefit from better structuring (e.g., bullet points for modes). Still, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values or outcomes. It does not mention what each mode produces (e.g., overview, privacy risks, detection results). Additionally, prerequisites or limitations are omitted, leaving the tool's full functionality unclear.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with enum descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It repeats the mode enum values in the description but does not explain specifics like what each mode does or how the scenario parameter affects behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a composite tool for WiFi CSI analysis and lists three distinct modes (techniques, privacy, detect). The verb 'analyze' and resource 'WiFi CSI' are specific, and the tool differentiates itself from siblings like 'scan_wifi_networks' and 'analyze_wifi_security' by focusing on CSI sensing.

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 mentions three modes, giving some guidance on when to use each. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like 'find_wifi_attacks' or 'analyze_wifi_security'. No exclusions or context for appropriate scenarios are provided.

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