nuclei_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful clarification that it only inspects and performs no scanning, but gives no detail on cost, latency, or what 'inspect' entails locally.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the exclusion clause placed immediately after. No filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. For a simple read-only inspection tool the definition covers what is needed, though a hint about when to invoke it relative to nuclei_plan or nuclei_execute would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no arguments whose semantics need explaining. The description's mention of the three inspection dimensions is a slight bonus framing of what the parameterless call yields.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') plus concrete resources: the local Nuclei executable, supported template types, and non-Web target formats. It is clearly distinct from the scanning sibling nuclei_execute thanks to the explicit 'Does not scan' clause, though it doesn't differentiate itself from nearby siblings like nuclei_templates or nuclei_guide.

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?

'Does not scan' implicitly tells the agent this is a discovery/precheck call rather than an execution call, which is a useful negative signal. However, it never states when to reach for it (e.g., before building a scan plan) nor names any alternative sibling to use instead for actual scanning.

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