network_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that the scan is active, autonomous, and potentially subject to legal restrictions, which is critical context for a security tool. It doesn't mention potential network disruption, but the schema's scan_type descriptions add some duration and depth context.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the authorization warning logically appended. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 has an output schema and a thoroughly described input schema, the description covers the essential purpose, authorization constraint, and the active, autonomous nature of the scan. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for a tool with this level of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for target, scan_type, and authorized. The tool description adds only a general reference to the autonomous agent, which complements the scan_type description ('agent loop') but provides no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 that this tool performs an active security scan of a device or host, with an autonomous AI agent deciding follow-up probes. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but the unique 'ActiveScanner' behavior and target scope sufficiently distinguish it from typical scanning utilities.

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 provides a clear authorization prerequisite ('Only scan targets you own or have permission to test') and implies use for active network scans. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like scan_secrets or full_stack_audit, nor does it state when not to use it.

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