nmap_port_scan

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

Discloses useful behaviors: asynchronous by default, wait to block, root-only for SYN scans, and timing presets. However, it omits side effects, permissions beyond root, rate limits, or what the job_id represents, and there are no annotations to fill in these gaps.

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?

Compact and scannable with a clear parameter list. Every line delivers necessary information, though using markdown formatting could improve readability slightly.

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?

Covers core scan parameters and async/blocking behavior, but leaves gaps around job_id usage, output structure, and how to retrieve results. It also doesn't mention timeouts or larger integration context, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains every parameter with examples and valid values. It clarifies port formats, scan_type variants, timing meanings, and wait behavior, going well beyond the bare schema fields.

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?

Begins with the specific verb-resource pair 'Port scan' and clearly conveys the async/blocking behavior. It is distinct from nmap_service_detection and nmap_os_detection, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from fast_port_scan or other port-scanning tools.

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?

Provides parameter usage but contains no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like fast_port_scan or nmap_vuln_scan. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational recommendations are given.

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