kali_network_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'perform a network scan' but doesn't specify whether this is read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, potential impacts on networks, or output format. For a network scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of network scanning (potentially intrusive or resource-intensive), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 both parameters ('target' and 'scan_type') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of scan types or target formats, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('perform a network scan') and the resource ('using Kali tools'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_service_scan' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan', which might have overlapping network scanning functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kali_service_scan' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan', nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without usage context.

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