discover-hosts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the underlying tool (nmap -sn) and notes the authorization requirement, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network noise, privilege requirements, or impact on targets).

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 (4 sentences plus a returns line) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, explains the method, provides use-case context, and includes a critical safety note. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. It could mention prerequisites or potential limitations (e.g., network permissions), but overall it provides sufficient context for decision-making.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new meaning beyond schema. The description text itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics, meeting the baseline 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 explicitly states 'Discover live hosts on a network without performing a port scan' and specifies use of 'nmap ping scan (-sn)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan-ports and detect-services, which have different purposes.

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 positions the tool as 'typically the first step in a network assessment' and emphasizes 'without performing a port scan', implying usage before port scanning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternatives.

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