Service Discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about active probing of the target, potential intrusion-detection triggers, authorization requirements, or timeouts. Only the bare 'discover' verb hints that this is an active network operation.

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?

At three words there is zero waste and the purpose is front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness — no scope, defaults, or context is delivered.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema network probing tool surrounded by near-duplicate siblings, the definition omits scope, default port behavior, and behavioral risk context. An agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly from this text alone.

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 documents 'target' and 'ports' itself; this meets the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and notably does not clarify the accepted syntax of the vaguely-labeled 'Port range' parameter.

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 has a specific verb and resource ('Discover network services'), so the general purpose is recognizable. However, the sibling list contains 'service_enumeration', 'port_scan', and 'nmap_scan', and the description offers no distinction from those near-identical tools, leaving the agent unable to tell which to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it replaces. With 'service_enumeration' and 'port_scan' present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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