nmap_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions refusal if target not in scope.yaml, but omits critical behaviors like scan duration, potential network disruption, required permissions, or output format. This is insufficient for a security 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?

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices completeness. It is adequately concise but could include more useful context without becoming verbose, such as a brief note on output or profile behavior.

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 existence of multiple sibling tools and an output schema, the description does not address what the output contains or how the tool integrates with scoping. Missing details on profiles, performance expectations, and error handling make it incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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 description must compensate. It lists profile values but does not explain what each profile does (e.g., port range, speed). The 'target' parameter is left vague with no format hints (IP, hostname). Minimal added value beyond 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Run an nmap scan') and the resource ('target'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gobuster_dir or nikto_scan by specifying nmap scanning and listing available profiles (quick, full_tcp, service, udp).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nikto_scan or hydra_bruteforce. The only behavioral note is a refusal condition, but no explicit context for selection among sibling tools.

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