map_import_nmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basics by stating auto-inference of node type, auto-arrangement in a grid, the priority of `hosts` over `xml`, and the exact return shape `{count, ids}`. It does not mention whether nodes are appended or replace existing map content, but the disclosure is strong overall.

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?

Three dense sentences, each adding critical information: the core function, the auto-inference and arrangement behavior, and the input/output contract. No filler or repetition; front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 two-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers input formats, parameter priority, automatic behaviors (type inference, grid layout), and the return value. It omits details like error handling or whether the map is cleared, but the essential information for invoking the tool is present and accurate.

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 already fully describes both parameters with examples (100% coverage). The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: the two parameters are mutually exclusive alternatives, and `hosts` takes priority if both are provided. This clarifies real-world usage that the schema does not convey.

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 parses nmap scan output (XML from `nmap -oX`) and creates nodes with open ports, adding that it auto-infers node types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `map_import_csv` (CSV import) and `map_add_node` (single node addition).

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 context is clear: this tool is for nmap scan output. It provides specific guidance on input alternatives ('Provide either raw `xml` OR pre-parsed `hosts[]`') and priority (`hosts` takes priority). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools.

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