analyze_wifi_direct

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'attack techniques' which may be destructive, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or what the tool modifies. This is insufficient for a multi-mode tool.

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 sentence with a parenthetical explanation of modes. No unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and modes.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and multi-modal behavior, the description covers the modes but lacks information on return values, expected output per mode, or any preconditions. Adequate but with gaps.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no further meaning to parameters besides grouping modes. 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 states it is a composite tool for WiFi Direct security analysis, with three distinct modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_wifi_security, which cover general WiFi, and the mention of P2P adds specificity.

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 lists modes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks. Usage context is implied but not directly stated, and no when-not guidance is provided.

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