nikto_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameter behaviors (max_time, timeout, ssl) but omits broader behavioral traits: that this is an active, potentially intrusive scan that sends requests to the target, may require authorization, or could produce side effects. For a vulnerability scanner, this is a significant 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 a tight bullet list with a clear one-sentence purpose up front. Every line adds information—no fluff, no repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five simple parameters.

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 no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the result of the scan will look like (e.g., job output, findings, reports). It also fails to mention any side effects or prerequisites. For a 5-parameter scanner, the description covers inputs well but leaves the output and postconditions unspecified.

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 explain all parameters. It does so effectively: 'target: host or URL (e.g. ...)', 'max_time: nikto's internal max scan time e.g. '10m', '20m', '1h'', and clarifies the ssl/port interaction. It adds format examples and practical guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 a clear, specific verb phrase: 'Web server vulnerability scan using Nikto.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_vuln_scan (network vuln scan) and wpscan_scan (WordPress-specific). The tool's scope is unambiguous.

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 first sentence implies usage for web server vulnerability assessment, and parameter hints (like 'use 443 with ssl=True') give some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., nuclei_scan, wpscan_scan), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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