nmap_run_nse_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries behavioral transparency. It discloses that extra_args accepts a defined list of flags and that XML output is parsed when possible, preserving script output fields. However, it omits details about side effects, error behavior, or what 'validated target' entails.

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 well-structured with 'Purpose', 'Constraints', and 'Example' labels, front-loading the main action. It is only four sentences long, each adding useful information, though the enumeration of allowed args could be seen as slightly verbose.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, but it has an output schema, which reduces the need for return-value explanations. Still, missing usage alternatives and vague target/script_name semantics leave gaps for an agent attempting correct invocation. The description is adequate for a simple run but not fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains extra_args's allowed values (-p, -sV, --script-args, --script-trace, -d, -v) and includes an example mapping target and script_name, but target format (hostname vs IP) and script_name resolution remain ambiguous. This only partially clarifies the three parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Run a previously written custom NSE script against a validated target.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nmap_scan and nmap_write_nse_script by emphasizing 'custom' and 'previously written.'

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 provides constraints ('Requires target and script_name') and an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap_scan for standard scans or nmap_write_nse_script for authoring scripts. The context 'previously written' implies a prerequisite but lacks direct comparison or exclusions.

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