aireplay_deauth

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It mentions disconnecting clients (destructive) but lacks details on side effects, permission requirements, or operational constraints beyond the basic action.

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 that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and 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?

Given the complexity of the tool and its siblings, the description is too minimal. It lacks workflow context, such as how it relates to airodump_capture or the need for monitor mode, and does not explain the handshake capturing process.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only providing context about the tool's purpose.

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 specific action 'Send deauthentication frames' and the resource 'disconnect clients from AP', with a clear purpose 'helps capture WPA handshake'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like aireplay_fakeauth and aircrack_check_handshake.

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 implies usage for handshake capture but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aireplay_fakeauth. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond what the schema provides.

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