find_mousejack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names four modes and mentions hardware parameters, but does not disclose behavioral details such as what each mode does internally, potential destructive effects (e.g., keystroke injection), or authentication requirements. 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is no irrelevant text, and every part contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is composite with multiple modes and 6 parameters, but no output schema exists. The description does not explain what each mode returns (e.g., scan results format, inject confirmation). This is a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it lists modes but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or examples. For a compound tool with 6 parameters, the description could better explain parameter relevance per mode.

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 states it's a composite tool for MouseJack vulnerability assessment and explicitly lists four modes (scan, assess, inject, defense). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or scan_bluetooth, which target different wireless protocols.

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 by listing modes, providing context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, which are all different wireless domains.

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