websex_nmap

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral context: argv tokens are passed without shell parsing (a meaningful safety/execution trait), the command runs from the selected engagement namespace, and artifacts should use relative paths. It omits permissions, intrusive-scan implications, and rate/output behavior, so it is partial rather than rich.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action and immediately follow with the execution-model constraint. No filler, though the namespace/path sentence could be compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, an agent still lacks routing guidance against the scanner siblings and the expected shape of the argv tokens, leaving meaningful gaps for a raw-command-execution tool.

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 description coverage is 0% with four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely covers 'arguments' (as argv tokens) and hints at working_directory via the relative-path note, leaving stdin and engagement_id essentially unexplained and providing no argument-format example.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run nmap') and resource (nmap from the WebSex toolkit), and clarifies the execution model ('container executes nmap directly with the supplied argv tokens'). It doesn't differentiate itself from close siblings like websex_rustscan, websex_masscan, or websex_autorecon, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 prefer nmap over the many sibling scanners (rustscan, masscan, autorecon). The mention of the engagement namespace implies a context but does not state when or why an agent should select this tool over the alternatives.

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