port_scan

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the scan is 'unprivileged and non-malformed (full handshake)' and 'intrusive' requiring explicit permission. This gives good insight into behavior. Missing details about potential side effects or limitations are minor.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each adding information: scan type, port parameter, banner grabbing, and prerequisites. No extraneous content. Efficiently structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the output format or what is returned (e.g., list of open ports, service banners). This is missing. Also, there is no mention of error conditions or result interpretation. For a scan tool, this is a significant gap.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'ports' parameter format ('top' or ranges) and mentions 'optionally grabs service banners' (grab_banner). However, 'timeout' and 'target' are not further explained, leaving gaps. Partial but useful guidance.

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 specifies 'TCP connect-scan an in-scope host', indicating the verb (scan) and resource (host ports). It is distinct from siblings like 'vuln_scan' or 'dns_lookup', though no explicit differentiation is made. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 mentions prerequisites: requires MOONMCP_ALLOW_INTRUSIVE and host in scope. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vuln_scan' or 'content_discovery'. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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