kali_network_nmap_discover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and supported methods, adding value beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it's read-only/destructive, permission requirements (beyond ARP note in schema), rate limits, output format, or network impact. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Discover live hosts on a network using Nmap') and adds necessary detail about methods. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (network scanning with multiple methods), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the what and how at a high level but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions beyond ARP), output format, or error handling. It's minimally viable but not fully comprehensive for an unannotated 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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 3 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the methods (ping, ARP, TCP, UDP, ICMP), which relates to the 'method' parameter but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Discover live hosts') and resource ('on a network') using the tool 'Nmap'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'kali_network_nmap_scan' by focusing on host discovery rather than comprehensive scanning, and from 'kali_network_masscan_scan' by specifying Nmap's methods.

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 clear context by listing supported discovery methods (ping, ARP, TCP, UDP, ICMP), which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'kali_network_nmap_scan' or 'kali_network_masscan_scan', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ARP method note in the schema.

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