scan_top_ports

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as potential intrusiveness or performance impact. It only mentions scanning with Nmap args, omitting caveats like detection risk or speed implications.

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 concise with clear sections (Args, Returns). No redundant information, though it could be more front-loaded. Every sentence is relevant.

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 complexity (custom Nmap args) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'top ports' means, how results are structured, or when to prefer this over siblings.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds minimal meaning: target is a hostname/IP, args are additional Nmap arguments. It does not clarify format, constraints, or examples, leaving ambiguity.

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 scans top ports of a target, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not define what 'top ports' means (e.g., top 1000), which slightly reduces clarity compared to a more explicit definition.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like syn_scan or tcp_scan. The description merely states what it does, missing an opportunity to differentiate among the many sibling scanning tools.

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