nmap_vuln_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It only states the script family and purpose; it does not disclose that the category parameter can select potentially intrusive categories like brute or dos, nor mention output format or safety considerations.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the core action with the exact --script vuln flag and adding one clarifying clause. There is no wasted text.

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 description captures the primary purpose but omits the broader category options and any caveats about script behavior or output. It is adequate for basic tool selection but leaves out important context that would help an agent fully understand the tool's scope.

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 with descriptions for target, ports, and the category enum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run vulnerability scanning scripts (--script vuln)' and states it checks known vulnerabilities on target services. It is clear and mostly distinguishes from sibling NMAP tools, though the category parameter allowing exploit/brute/dos is not mentioned.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when vulnerability detection is required), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like nmap_script_scan or nmap_service_scan, nor gives any exclusions.

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