run_nuclei

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

No annotations are given, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential destructiveness, network impact, authentication requirements, or whether the tool sends intrusive requests. This is a significant gap for a vulnerability scanning tool.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks additional context that would justify its brevity; it feels underspecified rather than concise.

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 tool's complexity (vulnerability scanning with parameters for severity and templates) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain expected output, template syntax, or potential risks, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the basic action, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since it doesn't contradict or misuse the schema.

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 community vulnerability templates against a target, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_nmap or run_gobuster, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_nmap for port scanning, run_sqlmap for SQL injection). There are no prerequisites or context on appropriate targets.

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