lookup_wireless_cve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs lookups and searches, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects (if any) occur. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 core functionality and lists modes. Every word is meaningful, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 has six parameters, four modes, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what each mode returns, any constraints, or expected output format. The agent lacks information to correctly interpret results.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats mode names. No examples, parameter interactions, or additional semantics are provided.

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 is a unified wireless CVE lookup tool with four distinct modes (lookup, search, by_product, stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on scanning, analyzing, or attacking wireless networks, not on vulnerability lookup.

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 lists modes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use each mode or when to choose an alternative sibling tool. Usage is implied by mode names (e.g., lookup for specific CVE, search for filtering), but no exclusions or context for selection are given.

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