scan_ports

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Quick port scan' but does not disclose how the scan is performed (e.g., connect scan, SYN scan), whether it requires elevated privileges, potential network impact, or what the output looks like. This is a critical omission for a security tool that could trigger alarms.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too terse to be informative. It lacks structure such as behavior, output, or usage notes. For a tool with two parameters, it could be longer without being verbose.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the scan returns, whether it is safe to run in production, how to interpret results, or any security considerations. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the lack of contextual detail.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. 'target' and 'port_range' are self-explanatory by name, but the description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., IP, hostname for target; '1-1000' is a hint but not explicit). The default value for port_range is given in the schema but not reinforced in the 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 'Quick port scan on a target' clearly states the action (scan) and resource (ports) and identifies the target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_website_comprehensive' which implies a broader scope. However, it does not specify the type of scan (e.g., TCP, UDP) or speed, which would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_local_network' or 'scan_website_comprehensive'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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