nmap_vuln_scan

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, but it only states the tool's function and script parameter values. It does not mention whether the scan is invasive, requires special permissions, could impact target systems, or how long it might take. This lack of behavioral context is a notable gap.

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, combining a clear one-line purpose with a compact parameter explanation. Every sentence adds information, and the structure front-loads the main purpose before explaining the parameter values. No wasted words.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable: it states the purpose and explains the key parameter. However, it does not describe what the output looks like or how to interpret the results, which would be useful for an NSE vulnerability scan. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but not rich.

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, so the description adds valuable meaning by explaining the 'scripts' parameter, listing valid categories ('vuln', 'safe', 'vuln and safe', 'exploit') and giving a concrete example. It does not explain 'ports' or 'targets', but these are fairly self-explanatory given the nmap context. The description compensates well for the schema gap on the most non-obvious 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 identifies the tool as an NSE vulnerability script scan, which is a specific type of nmap scan focused on vulnerability detection. It distinguishes from siblings like nmap_port_scan and nmap_service_detection by naming the exact category and even listing possible script categories and an example script.

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 the tool is for running NSE vulnerability scripts, which gives a clear context for its use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative scans like nmap_aggressive_scan, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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