port_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behavioral traits: different scan types affect speed, detection capabilities, and require admin privileges for OS detection. It does not mention potential risks (e.g., intrusiveness, legal issues), but the core behaviors are adequately described.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose followed by a compact list of scan_type options. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 has only two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the primary behavior and parameter semantics. It does not mention rate limits or authorization needs, but these are not critical for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the two parameters: target (IP or domain) and scan_type with five distinct options and their meanings, adding significant value beyond the bare schema types.

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 performs Nmap port scans on a target IP or domain, which is a specific verb+resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., whois_lookup, dns_enumeration) that serve different security purposes.

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 guidance on when to use each scan_type option with detailed effects, helping the agent choose appropriately. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention prerequisites like permission requirements.

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