websex_nuclei

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the container executes nuclei directly with argv tokens and that shell parsing is never used, plus the engagement-namespace scoping. But it says nothing about network access, side effects, scope/authorization requirements, or intrusive-scan behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the exec-model detail following. No wasted words, though the closing sentence mixes usage and path conventions in a slightly compressed way.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core exec model. Still, for a command-execution tool with zero annotation and schema-description coverage it omits stdin handling and any side-effect/scope context, so it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'supplied argv tokens' to arguments, 'engagement namespace' to engagement_id, and 'relative paths for engagement artifacts' to working_directory, but it never mentions the stdin parameter or clarifies the arguments format. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Run nuclei from the WebSex web toolkit.' An agent immediately knows this executes the nuclei scanner. However, it offers no differentiation from the many other scanning siblings (nikto, nmap, trivy, etc.), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives an operational hint ('runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths for engagement artifacts') but never states when to choose nuclei over alternative scanners or any preconditions/exclusions. It is execution guidance, not usage guidance, so it falls below the minimum-viable 3.

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