aircrack_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is passive ('without transmitting any packets'), requires monitor mode and root/sudo, captures wireless frames, and must only be used with authorization. It also mentions underlying tool (airodump-ng). It doesn't describe exact error behavior if prerequisites are missing, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (intro, Args, Returns, WARNING) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is not overly long, but the WARNING section repeats the legal authorization point, which is slightly redundant. Still, every line serves a 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?

For a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage prerequisites, parameters, return values, and legal/ethical warnings. It lacks mention of what happens if the interface is not in monitor mode (error handling), but the core operational context is well-covered.

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 0% coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each argument: interface ('Wireless interface in monitor mode e.g. wlan0mon'), scan_time ('Duration in seconds to capture'), and timeout ('Override default timeout'). The timeout description is somewhat generic, but overall it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Passively scan for wireless networks using airodump-ng... without transmitting any packets.' This specific verb+resource combination (passively scan + wireless networks) distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_scan and masscan_scan, which target wired/network scanning.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'monitor mode required' and 'passively capture wireless network information.' It also lists prerequisites (root/sudo, monitor mode) and legal authorization. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this for wireless, not for wired,' so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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