aircrack_check_handshake

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

The description clearly states it 'checks if a valid WPA handshake has been captured', implying a read-only evaluation. Without annotations, this provides sufficient behavioral context, though it does not detail error handling or prerequisites.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words.

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?

The description omits the tool's return value or output format (e.g., boolean or message), which would be needed by an agent to interpret results. Additionally, it does not clarify constraints like file existence requirements.

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%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'pcap file' aligns with the schema's 'Capture file path or prefix', but no additional semantics are provided.

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 specifies the action ('Check') and resource ('valid WPA handshake in a pcap file'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like aircrack_crack (which cracks) and airodump_capture (which captures).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is implied via the tool name and sibling context, but the description does not clarify when to use this over alternatives like checking via airodump_status.

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