portscan_only

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential intrusiveness, required permissions (e.g., root), or rate limits. The return value is only vaguely described as 'dict: The port scan results'.

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 no wasted sentences. It uses a clear structure with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the default scan type, how results are structured, or how this tool differs from the many sibling scanning tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining that target is an IP/hostname and args are additional Nmap arguments. However, it could be more specific about valid argument formats and constraints.

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 a port scan only' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like syn_scan or tcp_scan, which are also port scans, leaving ambiguity about the exact type of scan.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as syn_scan, tcp_scan, or os_detection. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for appropriate use.

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