kali_vulnerability_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Scan for vulnerabilities' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, potential impact (e.g., network disruption), rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs active scanning.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of vulnerability scanning, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('target' and 'tool') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining tool selection criteria or scan depth, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Scan for vulnerabilities using Kali tools' states a clear verb ('Scan') and resource ('vulnerabilities'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'kali_web_scan' or 'kali_network_scan'. It specifies the tool category but lacks detail on what the scan entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'kali_web_scan' or 'kali_network_scan'. The description implies usage for vulnerability scanning but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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