nmap_parse_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (parse) and the input source, but does not describe what the output looks like, how invalid XML is handled, or any side effects. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 exactly two sentences and every word earns its place. It states the core function first, then adds a usage note. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the basic purpose and usage context, but because there are no annotations or output schema, it would benefit from specifying what the parsed output contains (e.g., hosts, ports, services). For its low complexity, the description is minimally 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 schema already provides a description for xmlContent with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the schema sufficiently explains the parameter's meaning and format.

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 uses a specific verb "Parse" with a clear resource "nmap XML output", immediately distinguishing it from sibling scan tools. It also mentions the source (previous scan or file), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 phrase "from a previous scan or file" and "Useful for analyzing saved scan results" clearly indicate when this tool should be used (when XML output already exists). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple parser.

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