banner_grab

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether connections are closed gracefully or side effects). The description is accurate but does not enhance transparency beyond the annotations.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description covers the core functionality and mentions protocol variety. The lack of output schema means the agent might wonder about the banner format, but for a raw capture tool this is acceptable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage nuance to the parameters; it merely restates the tool's action, making the baseline score of 3 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 connects to a TCP port and captures the raw service banner. It distinguishes itself from HTTP fetching and lists example protocols (SSH, FTP, etc.), making the purpose explicit and differentiated from siblings like port_scan or audit_headers.

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 explicitly contrasts with HTTP fetching, suggesting when to use this tool over HTTP-specific tools. However, it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or mention alternative tools among siblings, leaving some room for improvement.

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