nmap_comprehensive_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that privileged access is required and the exact flags used, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as intrusiveness, scan duration, or output format, which is a significant gap for a scan tool.

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 that front-loads the purpose and includes the key flags. It is concise with no redundant 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 tool is moderately complex with no output schema or annotations. The description explains the scanning techniques and privilege requirement but does not cover what the output looks like or when to prefer this over sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 fully describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond naming the scan techniques.

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 performs a 'comprehensive scan' and enumerates the techniques (SYN scan, service detection, OS detection, default scripts) with specific flags (-sS -sV -O -sC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_scan or nmap_service_scan which target individual techniques.

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 by framing this as a comprehensive scan and notes the privileged access requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over the more specific sibling tools or when to avoid it (e.g., for a quick scan).

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