ping_sweep

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

Annotations indicate destructive hint, but description does not explain potential network disruption or detection risks. The statement 'Claude cannot send ICMP packets' is contradictory to the tool's apparent function, reducing transparency.

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?

Two sentences plus a tangential note about Claude's inability. While concise, the note adds unnecessary complexity and could be removed.

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?

No output format or behavioral details (timeouts, permissions, rate limits) are provided. For a potentially destructive tool, more operational context is needed.

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 already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds example and context but not beyond what schema provides, meeting baseline.

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?

Description clearly states it sends ICMP pings to a CIDR range to find live hosts, and differentiates from port_scan by noting it works without open TCP ports. However, the note about Claude's inability to send ICMP packets could confuse the purpose.

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?

Implicit guidance from 'works on the local network' and 'finds hosts even if they have no open TCP ports' suggests use cases, but no explicit comparison to siblings like arp_scan or conditions for when not to use.

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