nmap_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It covers execution timing and timeout behavior but omits critical aspects such as whether the scan is destructive, whether it requires escalated privileges, what the output format is, or any network implications. The description is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 paragraph of moderate length. It is not well-structured (lacks bullet points or clear sections) but is not overly verbose. It front-loads the tool name but then loses focus. Every sentence is somewhat earned but could be reorganized for clarity.

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 9 parameters (only 1 required), no schema descriptions, and no output schema details, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's primary function, output, or how to use it effectively. An output schema exists but is not referenced. The description leaves major gaps for a complex tool.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description adds value only for timing-related parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) but does not explain ports, scan_type, additional_args, or target. This leaves most parameters undocumented, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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 begins with 'Kali Agent MCP tool: nmap_scan' but does not explicitly state that it performs network port scanning or service detection. It immediately discusses execution timing, leaving the core purpose ambiguous. Sibling tools like nikto_scan and gobuster_scan are not differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use 'continue_background' vs 'kill' or 'return_partial' for on_timeout, but offers no advice on when to use nmap_scan over other scanning tools or prerequisites like network access or permissions. Context about timing is present but incomplete for general usage.

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