nmap_service_detection

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 only reveals the -sV flag and a version_intensity range. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., intrusive probes, slow execution, root requirements), what happens on failed detection, or whether the scan can be safely run on production systems. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 highly concise: a single-line purpose followed by a parameter hint. Every word earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (network service detection with intensity levels) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., service name, version, CPE), any prerequisites like existing port scans, or operational considerations such as scan time. The description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for invoking the tool.

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 for all parameters. It only explains 'version_intensity' with its range and meaning, but leaves 'targets' and 'ports' undefined. The parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but users are not told target format (IP, hostname, CIDR) or port syntax (e.g., '22,80' vs '1-1000'). The description adds value for one parameter but fails to cover the others.

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's action ('Detect service versions on open ports') and includes the specific nmap flag '-sV', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_os_detection or nmap_port_scan. The verb+resource+scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 (run after a port scan has identified open ports) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or why one might choose this over nmap_aggressive_scan or nmap_xml_scan. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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