find_wifi_attacks

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It correctly implies that the tool performs read-only searches and explorations without destructive side effects. While it doesn't detail authentication or rate limits, the behavioral scope is clear and consistent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key modes. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundant or irrelevant text.

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 (13 parameters, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's capabilities. It lacks details on return values but the modes are clearly explained, making it complete enough for an AI agent.

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 all parameters described. The description adds context by enumerating modes but does not explain parameter interplay or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 the tool's purpose: searching and exploring WiFi attacks in a knowledge base. It lists distinct actions (lookup by ID, search by protocol/category/severity, find by CVE/tool, get commands) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_wifi_networks or analyze_wifi_security.

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 for querying attack data but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are provided, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.

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