Run Nmap Scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Run a nmap scan using Metasploit,' which names the operation but not what happens afterward, whether results are returned, how long the scan may take, or what side effects occur. For a scan tool with no output schema, this is a significant transparency 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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and adds one useful contextual detail ('using Metasploit') without redundant phrasing. It is economically written and easy to parse.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the agent should expect from the scan, such as output format, success/failure signals, or whether results are returned directly. It provides none of this context. The tool may be callable, but an agent receives no guidance about the outcome or edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents target and options adequately. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Run a nmap scan using Metasploit.' It clearly identifies the tool as a network scanning operation, and the nmap vs. vulnerability scan distinction separates it from the sibling run-vuln-scan. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run-vuln-scan or execute-command. There is no mention of prerequisites, target selection criteria, or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate. The usage context can only be guessed from the tool name.

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