audit_wifi67

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, has side effects, or what outputs/results to expect. This is a critical gap for a security audit 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 that front-loads the main purpose and lists key actions. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points).

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 has multiple modes and no output schema, the description should clarify what each mode returns (e.g., reports, vulnerabilities). It also lacks prerequisites or invocation context. The description is incomplete for effective agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter purposes. The description adds no new meaning beyond summarizing the modes, which the schema already enumerates. 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 states it is a WiFi 6/6E/7 security audit and lists four modes (assess, assess MLO, compare, attack surfaces), giving clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks, though the modes imply unique functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools covering similar domains (scan_wifi_networks, analyze_wifi_security), the description lacks context for appropriate selection.

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