fast_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 discloses the two-step masscan+nmap process, the root/sudo requirement for raw sockets, the default rate and its noise implications, and the fact that service detection is optional. This is substantial transparency, though it could also mention potential network disruption beyond 'noisy' or the exact behavior when rate is set to extremes.

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 well-structured with line breaks for each parameter, a leading summary, and a final note about permissions. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Even though it is multi-line, it is concise for the amount of context covered.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, when to use it, parameter semantics, required privileges, and what it returns ('open ports with services'). It even includes a note about root/sudo. The only minor gap is the exact output structure, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, this is sufficient.

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 does so thoroughly: target formats are given (IP, CIDR, hostname), ports default and range syntax explained, rate meaning (pps) and effect (faster vs noisy) noted, and service_detection toggles -sV. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Fast port scan using masscan (discovery) + nmap (service detection).' It uses a specific verb (scan) and identifies the resource (ports), and it distinguishes from sibling nmap_port_scan by emphasizing speed for large ranges. The two-step pipeline is also explicit.

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 clear when-to-use context: 'Much faster than nmap alone for large ranges.' It also gives parameter tuning guidance (e.g., 'Use 1000 for stealth, 10000+ for speed on local networks'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, such as nmap_port_scan for single hosts or recon_sweep for different discovery needs.

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