detect-os

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

Absent annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses use of nmap -O, required root/sudo, and authorization necessity. It does not detail network impact or side effects, but covers critical safety and behavioral traits well.

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 concise with three short paragraphs: clear purpose, usage details, and return type. Every sentence contributes meaningfully without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers target type, timeout, privileges, and authorization. The output schema handles return value detail, so no gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Detect the operating system of a target host' using nmap TCP/IP fingerprinting, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like detect-services or scan-ports by focusing solely on OS detection.

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 notes elevated privileges and authorization requirements, providing clear context for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, though it implies its specific purpose.

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