no_portscan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool does host discovery without port scanning, but does not specify what methods are used, expected behavior, or any side effects. The 'custom arguments' possibility is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 very concise, with the main purpose stated upfront. The docstring format includes separate lines for Args and Returns, which adds structure but also some redundancy. Overall, it is efficient.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic completeness. It explains what the tool does and what each parameter means, but lacks detail on return format, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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's parameter explanations add value. It clarifies that 'target' is an IP or hostname and 'args' are additional Nmap command-line arguments. This improves understanding beyond the raw schema, though it remains minimal.

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 performs host discovery without port scanning, using a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('host discovery'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that involve port scanning.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ping_scan or arp_discovery. The description only says 'without port scanning', which is not enough to differentiate among the 14 sibling tools.

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