nikto

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

No annotations are present, and the description offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose that Nikto can be intrusive, requires consent (implied by the consent parameter), or any side effects. The description adds no value beyond the basic action.

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 4 words, which is excessively brief. While concise, it lacks necessary detail and structure to be useful. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with zero description, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or behavior.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (url, session_id, consent) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on required formats or purpose, e.g., what session_id is for or how consent is used.

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 'Web server vulnerability scanner' clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning web servers for vulnerabilities. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while not extremely detailed, it distinguishes from siblings like nmap (network scanner) or whatweb (web technology detection).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use Nikto over other sibling tools like nuclei, nmap, or extensive_scan. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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