kali_nmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type ('port/service info') and the execution environment, but omits potential behavioral aspects like scan duration, network impact, permission requirements, or side effects. It doesn't state whether the scan is safe or read-only beyond the implicit nature of nmap.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the return type. No redundant information or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to understand the operation. It tells what it does and what it returns, but lacks usage context, limitations, or examples. It would benefit from mentioning that flags are optional and how they affect behavior, but the schema already documents flags.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('target' and 'flags'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action: 'Run an nmap scan inside the Kali Docker container on Draydev' and mentions the output type ('port/service info'). It is a specific verb+resource, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like kali_web_scan or kali_dir_enum beyond the nmap reference.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kali_web_scan or kali_dir_enum. It doesn't mention prerequisites, scope limitations, or when not to use nmap. The description provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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