scan_wifi_networks

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It lists actions (scan, analyze, enumerate) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or hardware requirements. It lacks information on whether the tool modifies state, requires root, or has safety implications. The description is merely a feature list.

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 with a comma-separated list of capabilities. It is reasonably concise but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections). It conveys core functions but could be more readable.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to chain with sibling tools. The agent lacks context for proper usage, especially given the many related 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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond repeating the modes. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 for WiFi network reconnaissance and analysis, listing specific capabilities like scanning, encryption analysis, client enumeration, etc. The name and description align, and it differentiates from sibling tools like 'scan_bluetooth' and 'scan_iot_wireless' by focusing on WiFi. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similarly-named WiFi analysis tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., analyze_wifi_security, find_wifi_attacks). It does not mention prerequisites, alternative tools, or specific scenarios. The agent must infer from the list of capabilities.

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