get_wifi_passwords

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The single word 'Retrieve' only implies a read operation, but critical details are missing: does this require administrative privileges? Are passwords returned in plaintext? Is there any user prompting? The complete absence of such context makes this tool opaque and potentially dangerous to invoke without additional knowledge.

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 exactly one sentence of six words. It is maximally concise with no filler or redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the sensitivity of retrieving passwords, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about output format, return values (no output schema), security implications, and system impact. For a tool that could expose credentials, the agent needs far more context to use it safely and effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly stays silent. However, it could still hint at implicit inputs (e.g., 'from the current user's system'), but this omission is minor.

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 'Retrieve saved WiFi passwords from the system' uses a clear verb ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('saved WiFi passwords'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like scan_wireless_networks, which may have overlapping functionality. A higher score would require explicit mention of scope or uniqueness.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_wireless_networks or other tools). No prerequisites, restrictions, or common pitfalls are mentioned. The description provides no help for an agent deciding between tools, making it barely adequate.

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