nmap_host_discovery

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 discloses the use of -sn and that it is a ping scan, which is helpful, but does not mention potential limitations such as ICMP blocking, whether it uses TCP/SYN pings, or the exact output structure. This is basic but not comprehensive.

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 two lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and then parameter details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool, it covers the essential purpose and target format. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return value or what a successful result looks like. It also omits operational caveats (e.g., firewall interference), which is a notable gap for an AI agent.

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 sole parameter 'targets' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining acceptable formats: 'IPs, ranges, or CIDR' with concrete examples. This gives the AI agent all necessary information to construct valid requests.

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 a ping scan (-sn) to discover live hosts, and explicitly notes 'no port scan,' which distinguishes it from the sibling nmap_port_scan tool. The purpose is specific, action-oriented, and avoids ambiguity.

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 implies usage for fast host discovery by highlighting speed and the absence of port scanning. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., nmap_port_scan), but the 'no port scan' phrasing effectively communicates when not to use this tool. The target format examples provide practical guidance.

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