kali_run_nmap

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 behavioral traits. It only says it 'runs Nmap,' with no mention of potential side effects, runtime duration, network exposure, permission requirements, or behavior on failure. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is brief and adds necessary parameter context without repeating boilerplate from the schema.

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?

The output schema covers return-value details, so that gap is acceptable. However, for a command-execution tool with no annotations, the description omits important operational context such as expected runtime, safety considerations, and when to prefer the generic kali_execute_command instead. It adequately covers the two parameters but not the surrounding usage context.

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 the description must add meaning beyond bare property names. It does so by specifying target formats ('IP address, hostname, or subnet') with concrete examples, and by explaining that options are Nmap flags with a default and intent ('fast service version scan').

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 verb ('Runs'), the resource (Nmap), and the general target ('target hosts'), so the tool's purpose is clear at a glance. It distinguishes itself from sibling scanners like sqlmap and gobuster, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the generic kali_execute_command sibling.

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 kali_execute_command, kali_run_sqlmap, or kali_run_gobuster. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues to help an agent choose this tool over another.

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