network_port_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'non-invasive' but does not disclose required permissions, rate limits, side effects, or whether it scans from remote servers. Behavioral details are minimal.

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 short and to the point, but includes unnecessary filler like 'Menu ID' which does not aid tool selection. Most sentences add value, but could be more streamlined.

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 that port scanning is a complex operation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain default port range, output format, or limitations. It references describe_tool for more info, implying incompleteness. No output schema is provided.

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 coverage is 100% with one optional integer parameter (worker_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the parameter's role or impact.

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 it is a port scanner tool that scans network ports for open services, connectivity, and security analysis. It explicitly mentions 'non-invasive TCP port scanning', which distinguishes it from sibling network tools like ping or traceroute.

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 vs alternatives. It mentions 'non-invasive' but lacks context on when not to use it or compare to other port-related tools like network_tcp_udp_port_reference. It directs to describe_tool for full guidance.

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