get_interface_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavior. It only says 'get detailed information' but doesn't specify what information, whether the tool is read-only, requires privileges, or its effects. The behavioral transparency is insufficient.

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, which is concise, but it omits important details that could be included without losing conciseness. It is not optimally front-loaded with key information.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. It lacks details about return format, relationship to other wireless tools, or any behavioral notes. However, for a straightforward info-getter, it is passable.

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 the parameter 'iface' described as 'Interface name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. A score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage and no extra param insights.

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 'Get detailed information about a wireless interface', using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which are action-oriented (e.g., aircrack, aireplay). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from similar query tools if any exist.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about context (e.g., needing airmon started). The description lacks any usage direction.

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