port_scan

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'os' scan requires admin privileges, 'full' scan is slow, and 'vuln' runs vulnerability scripts. These are useful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists scan_type options in a bullet-like format. It is efficient but could be slightly shorter. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers input parameters, scan behaviors, and special requirements. It does not explain output format, but that is handled by the output schema. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds full meaning: target is an IP or domain, and scan_type options are explained with their implications. This compensates completely for the lack of parameter descriptions in the 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?

The description starts with 'Perform Nmap port scan on a target IP or domain.' This clearly states the verb (perform) and resource (port scan) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like DNS enumeration or CVE 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 explains each scan_type option with what it does and trade-offs (e.g., 'fast', 'slow', 'needs admin'). This helps the agent choose the right type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.

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