analyze_wifi_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'assessment' and 'estimation' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens to the system.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how modes work in detail, or the expected behavior for different inputs. The tool's complexity demands more guidance.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description adds a summary of modes but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 performs comprehensive WiFi security analysis, listing specific areas like WPA/WPA2/WPA3 configuration, PSK strength, EAP security, PMF status, protocol comparison, and crack time estimation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks (scanning) and find_wifi_attacks (finding attacks).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, making it hard for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools like crack_wps or analyze_pmkid.

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