quick-scan

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses aggressive timing, notes the authorization requirement, and states the return type, providing useful operational context beyond just the tool's purpose.

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 tightly written, front-loads the primary action, and uses brief paragraphs for returns and the authorization warning. 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 covers the tool's purpose, scope, use case, safety warning, and return type. With the output schema and fully-documented parameters, nothing critical is missing for a quick-scan 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?

All parameters are already well-documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little semantic value beyond what's in the schema. It does echo the 'top N' concept aligning with top_ports, but this doesn't go beyond the schema's own description.

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 a specific action ('Perform a fast scan of the most common ports') with a defined scope (top N frequently used ports) and distinguishes itself from a general port scan by emphasizing speed and common ports. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scan-ports.

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 use case ('Good for getting a fast security overview') and a critical safety boundary (authorized targets only). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of speed and common ports implies its role.

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