nikto_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals one behavioral trait (refusal when out of scope) but omits critical details such as scan duration, potential destructiveness, network permissions, or that nikto scans can be intrusive. The output schema may cover return format, but the description does not mention any behavioral aspects beyond the refusal.

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 single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key constraint. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about the scan's behavior, whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, expected duration, error handling, and what the return values represent. For a moderately complex tool like a security scanner, this is insufficient for an AI agent to use it correctly without additional clues.

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 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by explaining that 'target' and 'port' are used together in a 'target:port' format for a web vulnerability scan, clarifying that the target is a web server. This goes beyond the empty schema, though it does not specify format constraints (e.g., IP vs hostname).

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 runs a 'nikto web vulnerability scan' against a target and port, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nmap_scan (port scanning) and gobuster_dir (directory brute force) by specifying web vulnerability scanning.

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 only mentions that the tool refuses if the target is not in scope.yaml, which is a condition rather than guidance on when to use it. It does not provide explicit context for choosing this tool over alternatives like nmap_scan or gobuster_dir, nor does it describe prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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