tools_nmap

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Execute an Nmap scan' and reveals nothing about scan scope, output format, risk level, or side effects. The agent is left without critical safety or execution context.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a complex tool with five parameters and no other documentation, this brevity is a deficiency, not an asset.

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?

The description is grossly inadequate for a tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain what Nmap does beyond 'scan', what results look like, how long it might take, or any prerequisites. This is a minimal viable tool at best.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the five parameters. While parameter names like target, ports, and scan_type hint at their meaning, the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess semantics.

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 action ('Execute an Nmap scan') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes Nmap from other scanning tools by name, though it does not elaborate on Nmap's capabilities (e.g., service detection, OS detection) to differentiate it from similar tools like masscan or nikto.

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. With many similar scanning tools among siblings (masscan, nikto, gobuster), the description offers no context to help an agent choose this tool over others.

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