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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: the specific nmap technique, the need for root/sudo, and the legal/ethical requirement of authorization. It also indicates the return type (ScanResult). It does not mention potential failures or side effects, but for a read-only detection tool this is adequate.

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 efficiently organized: a clear opening statement, method note, privilege warning, authorization reminder, and return type. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so the description is largely complete. It covers method, prerequisites, and safety. It could mention limitations (e.g., OS detection can be imperfect), but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (target and timeout), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 the specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('operating system of a target host'), and distinguishes from siblings by naming the method (nmap TCP/IP stack fingerprinting). This is unambiguous among the sibling scanning tools.

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 clear context: it uses nmap -O, requires elevated privileges, and emphasizes authorized use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use detect-os vs scan-ports), though the purpose is evident from the name and description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It includes an authorization warning and explains it uses nmap service probes, which helps. However, it does not disclose potential intrusiveness, network side-effects, or permission requirements beyond the authorization note. The behavior is partially transparent but missing detail.

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 front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. It includes an important warning and a clear returns statement, all in four short lines with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does, how it does it, and what it returns, plus an authorization warning. Given the existence of an output schema and well-documented parameters, it is fairly complete. A minor gap is the lack of context about typical use in a scanning workflow, but it is sufficient for most agents.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (ports, target, timing, timeout, intensity). Therefore, no extra value is added in this dimension.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Detect services and versions running on open ports.' It specifies the method (nmap -sV) and the output (ScanResult with service information). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect-os or scan-vulnerabilities, making its function unambiguous.

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 usage for identifying service versions on open ports but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance like 'use this after scanning ports' or 'for OS detection, use detect-os instead.'

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool uses nmap ping scan (-sn), explicitly rules out port scanning, and describes the return type (HostDiscoveryResult with up/down host lists). It also adds a safety note about authorized scanning. It stops short of detailing edge cases (e.g., hosts that block ICMP), but the core behavioral disclosure is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, method, usage context, authorization warning, and return summary. No wasted words or filler.

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 that the output schema exists (covering the return value) and the input schema is fully documented, the description provides all necessary operational context: what it does, how it does it (nmap -sn), when to use it (first step), and a safety constraint. It is complete for a straightforward host-discovery tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (target, timing, timeout) with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: discovering live hosts without a port scan. It uses a specific verb ('Discover'), identifies the resource (live hosts on a network), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it performs no port scan and is the typical first step in a network assessment.

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 clear usage context, noting this is typically the first step in a network assessment and that it does not perform a port scan. It also includes an authorization warning. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., scan-ports) for follow-up steps, so it falls just short of full explicit guidance.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses aggressive timing, notes the authorization requirement, and states the return type, providing useful operational context beyond just the tool's purpose.

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 tightly written, front-loads the primary action, and uses brief paragraphs for returns and the authorization warning. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, use case, safety warning, and return type. With the output schema and fully-documented parameters, nothing critical is missing for a quick-scan tool.

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?

All parameters are already well-documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little semantic value beyond what's in the schema. It does echo the 'top N' concept aligning with top_ports, but this doesn't go beyond the schema's own description.

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 a specific action ('Perform a fast scan of the most common ports') with a defined scope (top N frequently used ports) and distinguishes itself from a general port scan by emphasizing speed and common ports. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scan-ports.

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 a clear use case ('Good for getting a fast security overview') and a critical safety boundary (authorized targets only). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of speed and common ports implies its role.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does include the security warning 'Only scan targets you are authorized to scan' and mentions input validation to prevent command injection. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network load or root privileges for certain scan types, which are left to the parameter descriptions.

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 three short paragraphs: purpose, validation and authorization note, and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant sentences, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core operation and return value but is sparse on contextual guidance such as when to use different scan types or how results map to the output schema. However, the schema provides rich parameter details and the output schema is available, so the description is adequate 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across all six parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The main description mentions scanning with specified parameters but adds no additional information about parameter formats or defaults, meeting the baseline without extra value.

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 'Scan ports on a target host or network' and 'Performs a port scan using nmap with the specified parameters.' This identifies the specific action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like discover-hosts or detect-services.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like quick-scan or detect-services. It includes an authorization warning but lacks usage conditions or exclusions, making the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses default safe script categories, potential security alerts, and the return type. However, it states 'safe script categories by default' while the schema says the default category is 'vuln', creating an internal inconsistency that undermines transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Returns' section is slightly redundant with the output schema, but it is brief and does not waste space.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers purpose, default behavior, a warning, and return type. The internal safe/vuln inconsistency and lack of explicit sibling comparisons are minor gaps, but overall it provides sufficient context for a tool with an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only mentions CVE identifiers in results, which relates to output rather than parameters.

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 scans for known vulnerabilities using NSE, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan-ports and detect-services by focusing on vulnerability detection and CVE identifiers.

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?

Usage context is implied ('Scan for known vulnerabilities') but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools. The authorization warning is a legal reminder, not guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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