nmap_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses almost nothing beyond recon intent and remote execution. It doesn't state noise/detectability level, authorization requirements, runtime or timeout behavior, or whether a scan may be intrusive — all material for a port-scanning tool. The 'remote Kali machine' detail is the one useful behavioral note.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the reconnaissance use case following. No filler, though it could have used the space to note a behavioral constraint instead of restating the purpose.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and roughly when to use it. It is adequate but leaves behavioral gaps (detectability, auth, timing) unaddressed for a network-scanning operation.

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% and the enum for scan_type is fully documented in the schema, including profile meanings and the ports override. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Run an nmap port scan against a target host or network on the remote Kali machine,' naming the exact tool and execution environment. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like nikto_scan, sqlmap_scan, or gobuster_scan by the resource and method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

'Use for reconnaissance: discovering open ports, running services, and OS detection' gives a clear use context. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., whatweb_fingerprint for web fingerprinting) and states no exclusions, so routing decisions between siblings are only implied.

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