scan_local_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Auto-detected' network range hints at discovery logic, but the description does not explain side effects (e.g., can be intrusive on network), permissions needed, or what happens if the network is busy. The 'stealth' scan type is mentioned but not defined.

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?

Three lines are concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence adds information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameters) but is efficient as-is.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits important context like whether scanning might be blocked by firewalls, if elevated permissions are needed, approximate time per scan type, or what the output format looks like. For a potentially intrusive network tool, this is a gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'network_range' (CIDR format, auto-detection) and 'scan_type' (lists three values: quick, full, stealth), partially bridging the gap. However, it does not explain behavior per type (e.g., what 'quick' vs 'full' means), which is needed for 0% coverage.

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 states 'Scan local network for devices and open ports' with a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_ports' (which likely scans a single host) and 'scan_website_comprehensive' (web-focused) by targeting the local network for device discovery and port scanning.

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 gives parameter examples but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_ports' (single host), 'discover_network_clients', or 'scan_host_vulnerabilities'. The context is implied but no exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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