scan-vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the use of safe script categories by default, inclusion of CVE identifiers, and the return type VulnScanResult. It also warns about triggering security alerts.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with a brief overview, important note, and return type section. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It differentiates from siblings through specific vulnerability scanning focus.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying allowed script categories and default behaviors for ports, scripts, timing, and timeout, which is not fully captured in the parameter descriptions alone.

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 'scan' and the specific resource 'known vulnerabilities using Nmap Scripting Engine (NSE)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like detect-os, detect-services, and scan-ports, which have different purposes.

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 an important usage warning about authorization and potential security alerts. It implies usage for vulnerability scanning but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like quick-scan or scan-ports.

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