discovery_scan_host

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world semantics, and the description adds real operational context beyond them: the allow-scan env var is ignored, timeouts apply, and SSRF protection blocks metadata IPs. This is meaningful governance/security disclosure for a scanning tool.

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 core purpose and the single-host constraint are front-loaded, and the long protocol enumeration is information-dense rather than filler. It reads as compact but slightly list-heavy.

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?

With no output schema and a complex multi-protocol scan, the description omits what the scan actually returns and roughly how long it takes. The safety constraints are well covered, but the result-shape gap leaves the agent under-informed.

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 only 40%, and three parameters (https, protocols, onlyGivenPort) are undocumented in both schema and description. The protocol list hints at probe targets but never clarifies that 'protocols' filters, what accepted values are, or how onlyGivenPort interacts with the port argument. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific action (parallel discovery scan) scoped to a single host and enumerates exactly which protocols/services it probes, making the resource and coverage unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like discovery_probe or compat_scan, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It states a hard exclusion (CIDR/ranges never allowed) but offers no positive when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative sibling (e.g., discovery_probe, discovery_suggest). An agent must infer the routing context itself.

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