get_nuclei_templates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return content (metadata, severity, tags, dorks) and confirming acceptance of both CVE and EIP IDs, which goes beyond the schema. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and its intended use case, leaving no critical gaps.

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% with a detailed description for the single parameter. The description reiterates the acceptable formats ('Accepts both CVE-IDs and EIP-IDs'), but this adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Nuclei scanner templates and recon dorks', specifying the purpose for a given vulnerability. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vulnerability or search_exploits by mentioning specific outputs like templates and dorks.

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 description includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to plan scanning or reconnaissance.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear and appropriate for a read-only lookup tool.

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