audit_wireless_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It describes each mode's purpose and parameter requirements but omits side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutation), access requirements, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 compact (two sentences) with a clear front-loaded statement and a structured list of modes. Every sentence adds value, though a very brief usage hint could further improve efficiency.

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 (5 params, 4 modes, no output schema), the description covers mode purposes and parameter dependencies adequately. It does not explain return format but the absence of output schema reduces the deficit. Sibling context reinforces its compliance niche.

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%, and the description adds context by linking parameters to specific modes (e.g., 'findings required for report mode') and enumerating modes without redundancy. This enhances the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Unified wireless compliance auditing tool' and lists four distinct modes (check, gap_analysis, compare_frameworks, report), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings focused on signal analysis or attacks by centering on compliance frameworks.

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 through mode enumeration but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not include when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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