exploit_suggest_from_nmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the input and basic return format but does not disclose expected input format details (e.g., XML vs raw text), size limits, error behaviors, or side effects. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about behavioral traits.

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 with three sentences covering purpose, args, and returns. It is front-loaded but could benefit from a more structured format. No unnecessary information is present, so it earns its length.

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 tool's complexity (parsing nmap output and suggesting exploits), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on input format, example usage, error handling, and output structure. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not provide enough context for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional knowledge.

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 single parameter 'nmap_output' is described as 'Raw nmap scan output text', which adds basic meaning beyond the schema's lack of description. However, it does not specify the expected format, encoding, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail but falls short.

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 analyzes nmap scan output and suggests exploits for discovered services. It uses a specific verb (analyze and suggest) and resource (nmap scan output). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'exploit_suggest_for_service', which likely has a similar purpose but different input.

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 when you have nmap scan output and want exploit suggestions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'exploit_suggest_for_service'. It lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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