detect-services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It includes an authorization warning and explains it uses nmap service probes, which helps. However, it does not disclose potential intrusiveness, network side-effects, or permission requirements beyond the authorization note. The behavior is partially transparent but missing detail.

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 front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. It includes an important warning and a clear returns statement, all in four short lines with no unnecessary words.

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 adequately covers what the tool does, how it does it, and what it returns, plus an authorization warning. Given the existence of an output schema and well-documented parameters, it is fairly complete. A minor gap is the lack of context about typical use in a scanning workflow, but it is sufficient for most agents.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (ports, target, timing, timeout, intensity). Therefore, no extra value is added in this dimension.

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 purpose: 'Detect services and versions running on open ports.' It specifies the method (nmap -sV) and the output (ScanResult with service information). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect-os or scan-vulnerabilities, making its function unambiguous.

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 for identifying service versions on open ports but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance like 'use this after scanning ports' or 'for OS detection, use detect-os instead.'

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