scan_iot_wireless

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a 'composite tool' for scanning but does not disclose whether scanning is passive or active, whether it modifies anything, or any potential side effects (e.g., network disruption). The behavioral impact of each mode is not detailed.

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: first states the tool's purpose, second lists modes and their functions. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description does not explain what each mode returns or the structure of results. For a composite tool with varied outputs (e.g., lookup returns attack details, scan_guide returns setup instructions), missing this information reduces completeness. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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 8 parameters, including enum values. The description briefly explains each mode but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, mode is already fully described in the schema. The description does not compensate further, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it's a composite tool for IoT wireless protocol security scanning and lists five distinct modes. It uses specific verbs (scan) and resources (IoT wireless protocols), clearly defining its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific protocols (e.g., analyze_zigbee) by offering a composite structure.

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 only lists the modes without providing any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_zigbee, scan_bluetooth). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The agent has no basis to choose this over similar tools.

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