tcp_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions performing a TCP connect scan but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or risks (e.g., detectability, need for root privileges). The args parameter allows arbitrary Nmap flags, a significant safety concern left unaddressed.

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, using a single sentence plus a structured docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the Returns section is overly terse.

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 no output schema, the description fails to adequately describe the return value ('dict: The TCP scan results' is too vague). It also omits any guidance on choosing among sibling tools, making it incomplete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 docstring adds basic meaning to the parameters: target is the IP or hostname, args are additional Nmap arguments. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides some value beyond the schema but lacks detail on input formats, constraints, or examples.

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 it performs a TCP connect scan on a specified target, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like syn_scan or udp_scan by naming the scan type, though it could elaborate on what a TCP connect scan entails.

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 idle_scan. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or when not to use it.

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