nmap_quick_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: scanning fewer ports than default via the -F preset. This is the core trade-off of the tool. It does not mention other potential behaviors (e.g., output format or lack of service detection), but for a simple scan preset, this is reasonably transparent.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that pack in the preset name, the behavioral difference, and the intended use case. Every word adds value with no 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, behavior, and use case. It could be slightly more explicit about the trade-off relative to more comprehensive scans, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, with both target and topPorts having explicit descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states the tool performs a fast scan preset (-F) and scans fewer ports than default, which is a specific behavior. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like nmap_scan and nmap_comprehensive_scan by emphasizing quick reconnaissance and reduced port count.

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 'for quick reconnaissance' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for more thorough scans, so it falls short of a 5 but is above implied-only usage.

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