os_detection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it performs OS detection and returns a dict, but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or limitations. Basic disclosure.

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 short and includes Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded but could be more concise. Every sentence is relevant, but the format is acceptable.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema/annotations, the description adequately specifies target and args but does not explain what OS detection entails, how results are structured, or prerequisites.

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 names parameters and explains 'target' as IP/hostname and 'args' as additional Nmap arguments, adding meaning beyond the schema's types. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates minimally.

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 'Perform OS detection on the specified target', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like version_detection or ping_scan by focusing on OS detection.

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 implies when to use the tool (for OS detection) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist among siblings. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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