analyze_zigbee

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only lists modes without disclosing behavioral traits such as destructiveness, authorization needs, or rate limits. Operations like key_extract may be active but are not described, leaving significant gaps.

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, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and modes. Although a bullet list could improve scannability, there is no wasted text. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 modes, no output schema or annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits output behavior, mode-specific use cases, and prerequisites, leaving the agent without a complete understanding of what each mode entails.

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 is already explained in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the mode names; it does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 Zigbee network security analysis and lists four specific modes (analyze, sniff_guide, key_extract, replay). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other wireless protocols.

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 Zigbee security analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like scan_iot_wireless. It lacks when-not or direct comparisons, though sibling differentiation is somewhat inherent due to protocol specificity.

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