discover-hosts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool uses nmap ping scan (-sn), explicitly rules out port scanning, and describes the return type (HostDiscoveryResult with up/down host lists). It also adds a safety note about authorized scanning. It stops short of detailing edge cases (e.g., hosts that block ICMP), but the core behavioral disclosure is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, method, usage context, authorization warning, and return summary. No wasted words or filler.

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 that the output schema exists (covering the return value) and the input schema is fully documented, the description provides all necessary operational context: what it does, how it does it (nmap -sn), when to use it (first step), and a safety constraint. It is complete for a straightforward host-discovery tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (target, timing, timeout) with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a 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 clearly states the tool's function: discovering live hosts without a port scan. It uses a specific verb ('Discover'), identifies the resource (live hosts on a network), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it performs no port scan and is the typical first step in a network assessment.

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 usage context, noting this is typically the first step in a network assessment and that it does not perform a port scan. It also includes an authorization warning. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., scan-ports) for follow-up steps, so it falls just short of full explicit guidance.

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