nuclei_run

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the JSONL output format and comma-separated target constraint, and mentions rate_limit for tuning. However, it does not disclose potential intrusiveness, error behavior, or side effects of running templates against targets, 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?

The description is well-structured with clear Purpose, Constraints, and Example sections. It is concise, with no redundant information, and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The example is useful and directly illustrates usage.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema is said to exist but not shown. The description covers the main execution aspects but omits include_raw behavior, detailed output structure, error handling, and any prerequisites. This is adequate for basic use but lacks depth for a complex security tool.

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 explains targets, templates, severity, tags, rate_limit, and extra_args, and provides an example with rate_limit. However, include_raw is not mentioned at all, and the format for extra_args is not detailed, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Run Nuclei templates against one or more targets with JSONL output,' which is a specific verb+resource+output format. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like nuclei_write_template by describing execution rather than writing. The example further anchors 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?

The description provides clear context by stating templates can come from nuclei_write_template or installed paths, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with other scanners like nmap_scan or web_vuln_scan, so it falls short of full guidance.

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