detect_port_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the detection action and usage scenarios, but does not mention return format, whether an active session is required, or any side effects. This lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, consisting of two sentences: the first states the purpose and the second lists usage scenarios. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 simple tool with two parameters, the description provides a clear purpose and usage conditions, which is adequate for basic selection. However, it lacks behavioral context such as output details and prerequisites (e.g., requiring a loaded session), leaving some gaps that an agent would need to infer from sibling tools.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, providing clear meaning for both threshold and session_id. The description text adds no extra semantic layer beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: detecting port scanning behavior from traffic patterns. It is specific to port scan, distinguishing it from broader threat detection siblings like detect_suspicious, and the usage scenarios reinforce its intended purpose.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (suspected reconnaissance, many connections to different ports, early stage of attack analysis), which is clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or direct comparisons with alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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