arvan_net_port_scan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, aligning with a safe scanning operation. The description adds that it defaults to common service ports, but does not disclose potential rate limits, host format requirements, or how timeouts affect scanning. The description provides moderate additional context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key default. No wasted words.

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 missing critical details such as the expected host format (IP or domain), what timeout means (per port or total), and the list of common service ports. It does not explain possible errors or output format. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, more context is needed for effective use.

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 description partially explains the `ports` parameter by noting it defaults to common service ports. However, `host` and `timeout` are not explained at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only covers one of three parameters inadequately.

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 scans TCP ports on a host, with a default to common service ports. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('TCP ports on a host'), distinguishing it from sibling network tools like ping, traceroute, and DNS lookup.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like TCP check or other network diagnostic tools. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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