exploit_suggest_from_nmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'suggest' implies a read-only, non-destructive action, but no details are given about potential external calls, side effects, or error handling for malformed input.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It conveys the basic idea but sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to know what to provide and what to expect. The tool may be simple, but the description still lacks essential context.

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 0%, and the description only references 'nmap output' without clarifying whether it expects raw text, XML, a file path, or any specific structure. This leaves the agent uncertain about proper input formatting.

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 states a specific verb (suggest) and resource (exploits) based on nmap output, which distinguishes it from generic exploit_search and service-specific exploit_suggest_for_service. However, it does not specify the exploit source or format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like exploit_suggest_for_service or exploit_search. There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as having a successful nmap scan or required output format.

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