nmap_scan

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'supports arbitrary nmap parameters' but fails to warn about potential risks like long scan times, network impact, or the need for careful parameter selection. The sudo parameter hints at permission requirements, but the description does not address this.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, resulting in a description that fails to convey critical information about parameters or usage context.

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 presence of 4 parameters, many sibling tools, and an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the output format, potential side effects, or how this tool relates to the broader set of nmap tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely and effectively use it.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no explanation for any parameter. The phrase 'supports arbitrary nmap parameters' vaguely addresses the 'options' parameter, but 'target', 'timeout', and 'sudo' are completely undocumented, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the schema's names.

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 '执行 nmap 扫描' (Execute nmap scan) provides the basic action and resource, but it is too generic. With many sibling tools offering specialized scans (e.g., nmap_quick_scan, nmap_service_scan), the description does not differentiate this tool as the general-purpose option.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its specialized siblings. For example, an agent would not know whether to choose this generic scan over nmap_quick_scan or nmap_service_scan for a given task.

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