nmap_ping_sweep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses that this is a non-destructive discovery tool and excludes port scanning, which is core behavioral transparency. It lacks details on potential privilege requirements for certain techniques or output format, but the main behavior is clear.

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 short sentences that immediately state the tool's scope ('Host discovery only (-sn)') and its purpose. Every word contributes, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 discovery tool with a well-documented schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It covers the key difference from port scanning, and while it doesn't mention output format, the schema and the tool's nature make this acceptable.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'target' and 'technique', including enum values. The description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: host discovery using nmap's -sn flag, without port scanning. This is a specific verb-resource combination that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_scan or nmap_service_scan.

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 usage when you need live hosts in a network and explicitly states it does not perform port scanning. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when/when-not guidance compared to the sibling tools.

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