nmap_stealth_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It mentions specific evasion techniques but omits critical traits such as scan type, potential side effects (e.g., firewall alerts, slowness), permission requirements, or safety implications. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding relevant detail about techniques. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to combine parameters, what the return format looks like, or any operational caveats. The schema covers param names but not deeper usage context, and the description fails to compensate.

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 already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds some context by linking decoys, fragmentation, and timing to evasion, but does not go beyond the schema's semantics or provide additional syntax or examples. 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's function: a stealth scan using evasion techniques such as timing options, fragmentation, and decoys. This distinguishes it from sibling nmap tools like nmap_scan or nmap_service_scan, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 stealth is needed ('to avoid detection') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. The context is present but not fully developed.

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