map_wireless_attck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the tool as a 'mapping tool' without stating whether it is read-only, requires network access, or has side effects. The modes imply data retrieval, but the description does not clarify behavior (e.g., does it query external databases? Are results cached?). This is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Unified wireless ATT&CK mapping tool'), and follows with a compact list of modes. Every word contributes information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 has four modes with different returns (lookup returns technique details, coverage returns full matrix, etc.), but the description does not explain what each mode outputs or what the return format is. No output schema exists. While the description covers the modes, it lacks details on data shape (e.g., heatmap data structure) and does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining each mode's purpose beyond the schema's enum labels (e.g., 'lookup technique by ID' vs. just 'lookup'), and lists valid tactics for by_tactic mode. This enhances understanding of how parameters interact with modes.

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 identifies the tool as a 'wireless ATT&CK mapping tool,' specifies four distinct modes (lookup, coverage, by_tactic, heatmap), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on scanning, analyzing, or attacking wireless networks. Verb 'map' plus 'wireless ATT&CK' is specific and concrete.

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 gives a concise usage guide for each mode (e.g., 'lookup technique by ID' for lookup mode), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or note any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tools are not mentioned, so no comparative guidance is provided.

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