nuclei_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose the behavioral profile. It mentions rate_limit and concurrency parameters, implying network activity, but it does not explicitly state that this is an active scan that sends numerous HTTP requests, potential target impact, or what output the scan produces.

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 compact bullet list of parameter definitions preceded by a one-line summary. It is efficiently structured, with no filler, and each line conveys necessary usage information.

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?

All parameters are documented, which is good, but the description doesn't mention the return value or expected output (no output schema exists), nor does it explain how this tool fits among the many sibling scanning tools. This leaves a gap for an agent needing to understand scan results.

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 schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining every parameter with concrete examples, including template paths, severity values, tags, and defaults for rate_limit and concurrency. This adds substantial meaning 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 clearly states the tool performs vulnerability scanning using Nuclei templates, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from generic nmap or nikto scans by mentioning template-based scanning, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose nuclei_scan over alternatives like nmap_vuln_scan, nikto_scan, or wpscan_scan. The description only explains its own function without contextualizing use cases or prerequisites.

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