nmap_script_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the number of scripts available, but fails to disclose that many NSE scripts are intrusive, can be noisy on the network, or may take a long time to run. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Run NSE scripts'), and includes a useful detail (600+ scripts). Every word earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on script safety, execution time, output format, and how this tool diverges from sibling nmap tools, making it incomplete for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 for all four parameters, including descriptions for ports, target, scripts, and scriptArgs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 runs NSE scripts for advanced reconnaissance and vulnerability assessment, which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nmap_vuln_scan, which also targets vulnerabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as nmap_vuln_scan or nmap_comprehensive_scan. The description implies usage for advanced recon and vulnerability assessment but offers no exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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