parse_nmap_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), error conditions, or prerequisites beyond 'completed job'. This is adequate but not rich; a 3 is appropriate for a non-mutating parser.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second explains the parameter. Every word adds value without unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 1-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, input, and return content sufficiently. It does not describe error cases or detailed edge behavior, but given the straightforward nature of parsing nmap output from a completed job, this is nearly 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 only defines job_id as a required string with 0% description coverage. The description adds critical meaning: 'job_id: completed nmap job ID', which tells the agent what value to supply. Since this is the only parameter, the description fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states the specific action ('Parse nmap output from a completed job into structured data') and resource ('nmap output'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling nmap scan tools and parse_nuclei_output. It also lists the outputs (hosts, open ports, services, OS guesses), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 phrase 'from a completed job' explicitly sets the usage context: this tool is for post-processing after an nmap job finishes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among many scanning and parsing siblings.

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