Prueba dinámica con Nuclei

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

Beyond the openWorldHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses concrete behavioral limits: intrusive templates (dos, fuzz, bruteforce, rce) and out-of-band interaction are excluded by default unless enabled. It does not say how long a scan takes or what happens to a run when targets fall outside scope, leaving some operational behavior unstated.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and target scope, then the profile taxonomy, then the safety exclusions. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 12-parameter active scanner without an output schema, the definition covers scope, profile semantics and the default safety posture, which is the core decision surface. It stops short of describing result shape or runtime expectations, a minor gap given the schema already handles most parameter detail.

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?

With 83% schema coverage the schema already documents almost every parameter. The description adds real meaning for the 'profile' parameter by enumerating what baseline, automatic, full and custom each select, but the remaining parameters are left to the schema, so this sits at the baseline rather than above it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: launching Nuclei dynamic tests against running applications, APIs or services. The 'en ejecución' qualifier implicitly separates it from the static/source siblings (scan_static, scan_codeql, scan_iac), but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Solo corre contra objetivos dentro de dast_scope'), which routes the agent to the dast_scope sibling first, and explains what each profile covers so the agent can pick one. It does not state when to prefer a different scanning tool, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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