port_scan

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: scan_type has options with specific behaviors (e.g., 'os' requires admin, 'full' scans all ports and is slow). It also implies it uses Nmap under the hood. Missing details like error handling or rate limits, but the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's operation.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose in one sentence, then uses a bullet list to detail scan_type options. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The format is easy for an agent to parse.

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's two parameters and the existence of an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description covers all essential aspects: target, scan_type options with behavioral notes, and performance implications. It lacks mention of potential restrictions or authentication needs, but these are less critical for a scanning tool. Overall, it provides a complete enough picture for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. For 'scan_type' it lists all options and their meanings, adding significant value beyond the schema's plain string type. For 'target', it adds 'IP or domain' context, which is minimal but helpful. The description does not elaborate on target format or validation, but the provided information is adequate.

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 it performs Nmap port scans on a target IP or domain, which is a specific verb and resource. The listing of scan_type options further clarifies its purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like full_recon or dns_enumeration.

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 briefly, implying when each might be used (e.g., 'fast' for top 100 ports, 'vuln' for vulnerability scripts). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names and descriptions.

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