nmap_comprehensive

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

The description discloses that the tool uses the -A option, which enables OS detection, version detection, script scanning, and traceroute. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential intrusiveness, network impact, or privileges required (though sudo param is present). Some behavioral context is added, but gaps remain.

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 clear sentence, achieving high conciseness with no filler. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key features), but it efficiently conveys the core 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?

Given the complexity of a comprehensive nmap scan and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits critical context about execution time, potential side effects, and output structure. The tool is significantly under-described for its scope.

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 does not explain any parameters, including 'target', 'sudo', or 'timeout'. While 'target' is somewhat obvious, 'sudo' and 'timeout' lack context (e.g., why sudo is needed or timeout's purpose). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 it performs a comprehensive scan including port, service version, OS detection, and default scripts (-A). This directly differentiates it from siblings like nmap_os_detection or nmap_service_scan, providing a specific verb and scope.

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 implies this is the all-in-one scan tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like nmap_quick_scan or nmap_service_scan. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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