monitor_wifi_rogue_ap

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output type (list) without any mention of read-only nature, permissions required, real-time vs cached data, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the list content (e.g., fields returned, filtering options, real-time behavior) that would be helpful given the security context. The presence of sibling tools suggests more context could be beneficial.

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 already provides clear documentation for the single parameter 'vdom' (target VDOM, default null, with explicit usage notes). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'rogue (unauthorized) Access Points', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like monitor_wifi_managed_ap (authorized APs) and monitor_wifi_interfering_ap (interfering APs). It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool returns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., monitor_wifi_managed_ap, monitor_wifi_client_list). There is no explanation of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool over siblings.

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