nmap_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that extra_args is preserved for certain modes, which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network probing, resource usage), error conditions, or what happens if constraints are violated. The description is largely procedural and lacks transparency about the tool's operational impact.

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 organized with clear 'Purpose', 'Constraints', and 'Example' sections, making it scannable and front-loaded. It is concise, though the use of ellipses suggests possible truncation, and the constraints section is dense. Overall, it earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 covers the core purpose, constraints, and provides an example, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, it leaves gaps: raw_args is unaddressed, the difference between raw_args and extra_args is unclear, and there is no guidance on custom mode usage or interaction with sibling NSE tools. Given the tool's complexity, this is a minimally adequate but incomplete contextual picture.

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?

The description adds meaning to several parameters (mode, target, ports, scripts, extra_args) by explicitly linking them to mode-specific constraints and giving an example. However, it does not explain the purpose or distinction between raw_args and extra_args, and 'preserved' is vague. Given that the schema provides only defaults and enum values, the description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Run Nmap' and specifies the resource (Nmap scan) with a list of modes (quick, aggressive, port, script, custom) and their high-level purposes (host discovery, service enumeration, NSE execution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_write_nse_script and nmap_run_nse_script by focusing on scanning rather than script creation or execution exclusively.

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 'Constraints' section provides clear prerequisites for when each mode is valid (e.g., quick/aggressive/port/script require target, port requires ports, script requires scripts). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose nmap_scan over sibling tools like nmap_run_nse_script, nor does it mention alternatives for custom script handling. Thus, it gives usage context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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