kali_network_nmap_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: root requirements for certain scans, performance implications ('Large port ranges increase scan time significantly'), and practical constraints like timing trade-offs. It doesn't cover everything (e.g., network impact, error handling) but adds substantial value beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Capabilities, Usage Notes, Example), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 10 parameters, efficiently conveying essential information in a digestible format.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete—it covers purpose, behavioral traits, and usage context. However, it lacks details on output format interpretation or error scenarios, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. Still, it provides sufficient guidance for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'ports' and 'timing' in examples but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Perform network port scanning using Nmap' with specific verbs ('scanning', 'discovering') and resources ('hosts', 'services', 'vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kali_network_masscan_scan by specifying Nmap's unique capabilities (e.g., OS fingerprinting, NSE scripts) that other scanning tools may not offer.

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 for when to use this tool through 'Usage Notes' (e.g., 'TCP SYN scan requires root privileges', 'Use appropriate timing for stealth vs speed'), and examples illustrate different scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like kali_network_nmap_discover or kali_network_masscan_scan, missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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