nmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does (scans hosts/ports/services/OS) and what it returns (open ports, service banners, detected OS), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network traffic volume, privileges required (e.g., root for OS detection), or that scanning may be blocked by firewalls. This leaves a gap in behavioral transparency.

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?

Five concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, primary usage, expected output, and two alternative routes. The most critical information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema. It explains the tool's scope, output, and alternatives. It could mention reading the opts parameter for advanced use, but the schema already covers that. Given the tool's complexity, this is sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all three parameters (target, opts, ports) have detailed descriptions including examples and defaults. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('scanner') and resource ('network'), and enumerates concrete capabilities: host discovery, port scanning, service/version detection, OS fingerprinting. It also differentiates from siblings by naming masscan and arp_scan as alternatives for different use cases, so an agent can immediately distinguish it.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this FIRST on any target to understand what's running.' It also provides when-not-to-use by directing to masscan for fast bulk port scanning and arp_scan for local subnet host discovery. These alternatives and conditions are clear and actionable.

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