scan_ports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that it probes ports, reads banners, detects protocols (listing examples), and runs targeted fingerprinting. It does not cover limitations (e.g., firewall impact) or what it does not do, but overall it provides a clear view of the tool's actions.

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 two sentences long, no wasted words. It front-loads the core function in the first sentence and elaborates in the second. Every sentence adds value.

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 (two simple params, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality. It mentions detected protocols and fingerprinting. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but for a port scanner the description is largely sufficient.

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%, with descriptions for 'host' (target host) and 'ports' (default common ports). The description adds that it probes specified ports and defaults to common service ports, aligning with the schema. No additional syntax or constraints are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs TCP port scanning with banner grabbing and automatic service detection, listing specific protocols. It is a specific verb+resource combination. While the purpose is clear, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_services, which also deals with service detection.

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 context on what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or scenarios where it should not be used. The sibling tools include more specialized scans (scan_dns, scan_http) and analytic tools, but no comparison is made.

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