nmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function and does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential network impact, authorization requirements, rate limiting, or destructive nature. This is insufficient for a tool that may perform intrusive scanning.

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 short (two words and 'service detection'), which is concise but lacks structure. It does not waste words but also does not provide a complete sentence or organized 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters including consent and session) and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential information about parameters, behavior, and typical use cases, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. It fails to explain that 'host' is the target, 'session_id' ties to a session, 'ports' limits scanning to specific ports, and 'consent' likely authorizes scanning. Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot correctly fill the schema.

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 'Port scanning and service detection' clearly states the core function with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like masscan which also performs port scanning, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use nmap versus alternatives like masscan or nikko. There is no mention of the need for consent (despite the consent parameter) or context about session management, leaving the agent without usage context.

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