nmap_aggressive_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scan components (OS, version, scripts, traceroute), which is useful behavioral info. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network noise, slowness, or disruptiveness, which are important for an aggressive scan.

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: two short lines. The first line clearly states the scan technique and flags, the second clarifies the target argument format. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 complex tool like an aggressive nmap scan, the description is minimal. It lacks expected output format, runtime expectations, risk warnings, and integration with other tools. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate, but it does not provide enough context.

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 only clarifies the 'targets' parameter (IPs/ranges/hostnames). The 'ports' parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description; no guidance on format, ranges, or special values is given. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for one parameter.

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 an aggressive nmap scan (-A) that covers OS detection, version detection, default scripts, and traceroute. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('targets'), and the details distinguish it from sibling tools like nmap_port_scan or nmap_os_detection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other nmap variants. It does not mention alternatives or exclusionary scenarios (e.g., 'use fast_port_scan for quick checks'). The only implied usage is that it is aggressive, but no concrete decision criteria are provided.

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