scan_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the scan is non-intrusive and uses nmap, which are valuable safety signals. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network noise, detectability, or permission requirements, leaving part of the behavioral profile undisclosed.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the action, target, and method with no filler. The key terms are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately recognizable.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential what, how, and safety indication. It lacks explicit guidance on where this fits in the workflow, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed; the description adds no parametric confusion.

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 uses a specific verb ('Descubre'), a clear resource ('puertos y servicios del objetivo'), and the method ('nmap'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis/guidance tools by focusing on active network discovery.

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 intended use case is implied: scan the target's ports/services before deeper analysis like HTTP header or TLS inspection. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool vs. others, nor any mention of prerequisites or contexts where scanning would not be appropriate.

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