nuclei

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses output details (vulnerability name, severity, matched endpoint, remediation reference) and notes template-based scanning with community-maintained YAML templates. However, it does not mention any potential side effects (e.g., active scanning may be intrusive) or failure modes. Since this is a vulnerability scanner, silently omitting that it sends network requests is a moderate gap.

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 concise, starting with the purpose in the first sentence, then elaborating capabilities and usage. Every sentence adds value: purpose, detection types, usage guidance, and output format. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks specific prerequisites (e.g., network access, target must be reachable) or caution about active scanning, but these are implied. Given the breadth of siblings, the description sufficiently orients the agent.

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 both parameters (target and opts) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions template-based scanning and CVE detection, which aligns with the opts description, but does not introduce new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Modern template-based vulnerability scanner' with a clear resource (targets) and action (scans for CVEs, misconfigurations, exposed panels, etc.). It explicitly contrasts with nikto ('Much faster and more current than nikto'), distinguishing it from that sibling tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use as your primary vulnerability scanner after discovering services.' This tells when in the workflow it fits relative to service discovery tools (e.g., nmap) and directly names nikto as an alternative, highlighting why nuclei is preferred. The conditions and comparison are clear.

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