net.deepscan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral facts: the external binary dependency, a config gate that can make it unavailable, and that it only accepts RFC1918 targets. It says nothing about runtime cost/duration, what happens on non-private hosts, error behavior when nmap is missing, or what the scan yields — meaningful gaps for an active scanning tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and scope, then the hard prerequisites, then the rationale. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation-class tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain ports/topPorts semantics and roughly what the scan returns. It covers the gating well but leaves the agent unable to choose parameters or anticipate output.

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?

Three parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them by name. "LAN RFC1918 targets" hints at the host constraint, but ports and topPorts — the parameters that actually determine scan behavior and duration — get no explanation beyond bare regex/range constraints in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (nmap deep scan) and constrains the target scope to LAN RFC1918 addresses, which meaningfully separates it from public-target siblings like net.portcheck/net.publicip. It never names the lighter-weight sibling (net.portscan, lan.sweep) it is the heavyweight alternative to, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Optional" and "opt-in by design" plus the two prerequisites (nmap on PATH, nmap.enabled=true) tell the agent this is gated and may be unavailable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many scan siblings, so selection between net.deepscan and net.portscan is left to inference.

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