smbmap_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: password is redacted in logs, hashes format is LM:NT, null session support, and the allowed_hosts constraint. This goes beyond a simple 'lists shares' statement and gives the agent a clearer picture of side effects and requirements.

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 well-structured with 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Note' sections, making it easy to scan. It is slightly redundant in the opening sentences ('Enumerate SMB shares...' and 'smbmap lists available SMB shares...'), but overall it is appropriately sized and every section serves a purpose.

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 moderate complexity (8 params, optional recursion, output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the target constraint, and authentication options. It does not describe error behavior or edge cases, but the output schema and sufficient parameter detail make it complete enough 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all 8 parameters with clear meanings, defaults, and formats. For example, it specifies the hash format (LM:NT) and what null session means for the username field. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds significant 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 the tool's function: 'Enumerate SMB shares and permissions using smbmap.' It uses a specific verb ('Enumerate') and resource ('SMB shares and permissions'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like enum4linux_scan or nxc_enum, so it doesn't fully meet the 'distinguishes from siblings' criteria for a 5.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to enumerate SMB shares and permissions) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives. It does mention a prerequisite (target must be in allowed_hosts) and explains optional recursive listing, but offers no exclusions or comparisons.

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