nmap_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the need for authorization and scope, and describes the output structure. However, it does not warn that NSE vuln scripts may be intrusive or that scans can be detected, nor does it mention rate limits or potential side effects. Some transparency is present, but significant details are omitted.

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 a concise opening sentence followed by labeled sections (USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, INPUT_DESCRIPTION, etc.). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every section provides actionable information without fluff. The format is easy to parse and understand.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage instructions, parameter semantics, prerequisites, examples, output format, and related tools. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in detail: target as host/IP/CIDR with scope requirement, profile listing allowed values (quick|full|service|os|aggressive|vuln|top-ports), ports with syntax and override behavior, and extra_args as raw nmap flags. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Run an nmap scan against an authorized target' and the USECASE adds 'Discover open ports, services, versions, OS and run NSE vuln scripts'. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like masscan_scan or host_discovery, so it falls short of a 5.

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 step-by-step instructions (INSTRUCTIONS), prerequisites (ensure target in scope, nmap available), and examples. It gives clear context on how and when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it, so no exclusions are given.

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