nmap_os_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the need for privileged access and that detection is attempted, but it does not disclose potential side effects, network activity, accuracy limitations, or what happens on failure. This lack of depth is insufficient for a tool that performs active scanning.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary operation ('Perform OS fingerprinting') and include a critical prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.

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?

For a simple tool with clear parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a key constraint. However, the lack of guidance on when to use it versus siblings and the sparse behavioral disclosure prevent a higher score, though it is not critically incomplete.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters with meaningful details (target, retries, aggressive mode). The description text itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema 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 clearly states the tool's function as OS fingerprinting using the -O flag, and specifically identifies the goal of determining the operating system of target hosts. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like nmap_service_scan or nmap_vuln_scan, which have different purposes.

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 the use case when OS identification is needed and notes a prerequisite (privileged access), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusionary criteria. No comparison to sibling tools is given, so guidance is 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.