crack_wps

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

The description mentions attack commands including brute force, Pixie Dust, and null PIN, implying potentially destructive or intrusive behavior, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., monitor mode, root access) or ethical/legal warnings. No annotations exist to supplement this.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key modes, but it could be better structured (e.g., separated into bullet points or clearer sections). No wasted words.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal guidance on what results to expect or how parameters interact. It covers the three modes sufficiently but lacks detail on output or usage order.

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 explains each parameter. The description adds no new semantic value beyond summarizing the mode options. 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?

Description clearly specifies the tool's purpose: WPS security analysis and attack, including specific modes (assess, attack_commands, defense). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on WPS, not general Wi-Fi analysis.

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 and mode parameter clearly indicate when to use which mode (assess, attack_commands, defense). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons to alternatives like analyze_wifi_security or find_wifi_attacks.

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