nikto_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that execution happens on a remote Kali host and that it probes for dangerous files and misconfigurations, but says nothing about intrusiveness, scan duration, authentication/network prerequisites, or that extra_args can meaningfully change behavior. Some context is added, but key operational traits are missing.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the finding categories. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a four-parameter scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and detection scope but omits runtime expectations, safety profile, and how to interpret results. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, with clear gaps for an agent that must decide between it and nine sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url, port, ssl, and extra_args with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 tool (Nikto), a specific verb (run), a specific resource (web server vulnerability scan), and the execution location (remote Kali machine), plus the classes of findings it produces. This distinguishes it from nmap_scan (port scanning), whatweb_fingerprint (fingerprinting), and sqlmap_scan (SQL injection).

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 says what the tool does but never states when to reach for it versus siblings like nmap_scan, whatweb_fingerprint, or the generic dast_scan. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing guidance for an agent choosing among ten scan/attack tools.

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