audit_wlan_controller

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool audits and guides but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, output format, or error behavior. For a read-like tool, it is minimally 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and modes. It is concise without being under-specified, earning a high score for structure, though a touch more detail on mode usage could improve clarity.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or post-condition effects. It provides enough to understand the tool's scope but not enough for fully informed invocation without external knowledge.

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%, meaning each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add new semantic value beyond listing modes; it merely repeats the mode names. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter explanations.

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 identifies it as a 'Unified WLAN controller auditing tool' and lists four distinct modes, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. Sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or find_wifi_attacks focus on client-side or attack scanning, so this tool is well-differentiated as a controller-side auditing tool.

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 via mode selection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when to choose audit_ssid mode vs analyze_wifi_security). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from mode names alone.

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