escanear_puertos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans ~35 common TCP ports, detects specific services, and marks high-risk ones with advice. This covers key behavioral traits for a port-scanner, though it could mention stealthiness or concurrency.

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 highly concise: a single sentence for purpose, a list of detectable services, and a clear Args block. All sentences add value with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (common port scan with ~35 ports) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers parameters, behavioral notes, usage restrictions, and detected services. No additional information seems necessary.

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 0%, so the description is essential. It explains 'host' as 'dirección IP o dominio a escanear' with examples, and 'timeout' as 'tiempo de espera por puerto en segundos (default: 0.5)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Escanea ~35 puertos TCP comunes de un host', specifying the action (scans), resource (~35 common TCP ports), and subject (host). It also distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which perform port scanning, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: 'Solo sobre sistemas propios o autorizados' restricts usage to authorized systems. It lists detected services, informing the agent what information can be obtained. Although it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, no sibling tool performs similar scanning, so the guidance is sufficient.

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