detect-os

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: the specific nmap technique, the need for root/sudo, and the legal/ethical requirement of authorization. It also indicates the return type (ScanResult). It does not mention potential failures or side effects, but for a read-only detection tool this is adequate.

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 efficiently organized: a clear opening statement, method note, privilege warning, authorization reminder, and return type. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so the description is largely complete. It covers method, prerequisites, and safety. It could mention limitations (e.g., OS detection can be imperfect), but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (target and timeout), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('operating system of a target host'), and distinguishes from siblings by naming the method (nmap TCP/IP stack fingerprinting). This is unambiguous among the sibling scanning tools.

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 clear context: it uses nmap -O, requires elevated privileges, and emphasizes authorized use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use detect-os vs scan-ports), though the purpose is evident from the name and description.

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