nmap_service_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool performs version detection and identifies services, but it does not mention that this involves sending network probes, potential intrusiveness, or that it only scans open ports (implied by 'on open ports' but not explicit). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 a single sentence that is both concise and information-dense, providing the verb, flag, and expected outcome without any filler 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?

The tool is simple (4 params, no output schema), and the description adequately covers the purpose and what it returns ('Identifies service names and versions'). It could be more complete by noting that the scan may take time or that intensity/lightMode affect accuracy, but the schema already covers those, and the description is sufficient for basic selection.

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 is 100%, with every parameter described meaningfully. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which already explains ports, target, intensity, and lightMode. The baseline of 3 applies because schema carries the weight.

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 ('Perform service version detection') and identifies the exact Nmap flag (-sV), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like nmap_os_detect and nmap_script_scan. It also states the outcome: identifying service names and versions on open ports.

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 tool is for service version detection, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap_comprehensive_scan or nmap_quick_scan, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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