nikto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool does NOT exploit and only reports, and it describes the output as a categorized list with severity. This provides important safety and behavioral context, though it does not mention network impact or permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded, covering the core purpose, usage timing, alternatives, non-exploit behavior, and output structure in three sentences. Every sentence contributes value without 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 tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description covers what it does, what it finds, when to use it, what it does not do, and the expected output format. Since there is no output schema, the explicit output description fills that gap well.

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 the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds little parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific resource and action: a web server vulnerability scanner that checks for 6700+ known issues across defined categories. It also distinguishes itself from sibling scanners by naming nuclei and wpscan as alternatives for different scopes.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool early in web recon for low-hanging vulnerabilities and provides clear routing: nuclei for modern CVE-based scanning and wpscan for WordPress-specific scanning. This gives an agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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