ctf_scan_ports

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions using bash /dev/tcp, implying a TCP connect scan, but does not explain stealthiness, timeouts, handling of closed/filtered ports, or whether UDP is supported. The description is too brief to convey important behavioral details.

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 very concise at two sentences with no filler. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., call out parameters), but it is efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and deeper parameter documentation, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., open ports list), default behavior for the ports parameter, or any security notes. However, for a simple CTF tool, it minimally suffices.

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 descriptions for 2 of 3 parameters (target and ports), with 67% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. 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 action (port scan), the resource (ports), and the context (from remote machine using bash /dev/tcp). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ctf_listen_port and port_check by specifying the method and remote execution.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., port_check, docker_exec, etc.). It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be better.

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