detect_wireless_attack

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only lists mode outputs (e.g., rule generation, guide, indicators) without disclosing operations, side effects, or prerequisites. Agent lacks insight into what the tool actually does beyond generating text.

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?

Two sentences with clear enumeration of modes. Concise and front-loaded, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet format) for easier scanning.

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?

No output schema, yet description does not explain return values or behavior. Given 5 modes and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete—it omits output details and fails to specify action (e.g., returns text rules, guides, or recommendations).

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% with param descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond listing mode names; however, baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 states 'Unified wireless attack detection tool' and enumerates five distinct modes, providing a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from more specialized sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_deauth.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists modes but does not provide when-not or compare to siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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