nmap_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety and behavior disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool checks accessibility via SSH or locally, implying a read-only status check. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what 'configuration' inspection entails.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no wasted text 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?

Given the zero-parameter signature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope for a simple status check. It could elaborate on the exact output format, but for a preflight tool the provided information is likely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema shows 100% coverage (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('Check') and identifies the resource ('nmap availability and configuration'), clarifying the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling scan tools by noting it checks accessibility via SSH or locally, though it could more explicitly state it is a preflight status check.

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?

Usage context is implied: it checks nmap availability before running scans. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the scan siblings, nor does it mention that it should be run first as a prerequisite.

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