kali_network_netdiscover_scan

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'active and passive modes' and that it's an 'ARP reconnaissance tool,' which gives some context about network scanning behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, potential network impact, output format, or rate limits, which are critical for a network scanning tool with no structured safety hints.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key feature (modes). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a network scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or security implications, which are essential for proper tool invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for safe and effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool's mode (active/passive) relates to parameters, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 the tool's purpose as an 'ARP reconnaissance tool for discovering hosts on a local network,' which specifies the verb (discovering), resource (hosts), and scope (local network). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_network_nmap_discover' or 'kali_network_masscan_scan,' which likely have overlapping network discovery functions.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'active and passive modes,' suggesting when to choose between them, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap or masscan for network scanning. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

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