scan_host_ports

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait: if nmap is installed it will be used, otherwise Python socket scanning. This is useful for understanding performance and reliability. Without annotations, it provides adequate transparency, though it could mention potential intrusiveness or rate limiting.

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 relatively concise with two sentences plus a header. It front-loads the purpose and includes relevant detail. A bit more structure could help, but 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 the simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers main behavior (scan method, default ports). It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. It is complete enough for an agent to use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds that leaving 'ports' empty scans common ports, which is helpful but not essential. It does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 port scanning to detect open ports and services on a host. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discover_network' by focusing specifically on host ports and providing detail about scanning method (nmap vs socket). The title and description are aligned.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_scan' or 'discover_network'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where the tool is appropriate or not.

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