nmap_service_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 does not mention potential side effects (e.g., network probing, need for sudo), performance considerations, or output format. The description is too terse to inform the agent of behavioral traits beyond the basic scan action.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loads the purpose. However, it may be too brief to be effective, sacrificing completeness for brevity. It earns a baseline score for being minimally adequate.

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 tool has 4 parameters, numerous siblings, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter details, usage context, or behavioral aspects. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of explanatory content.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to parameters like target, ports, sudo, or timeout. It only reiterates the tool's overall function without explaining how to configure the scan, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from names and defaults alone.

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 explicitly states 'scan ports and detect service version (-sV)', clearly identifying the tool's specific action and resource. The mention of the nmap flag -sV distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_scan or nmap_os_detection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations where another tool would be preferable, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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