nuclei_guide

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It does add genuinely new behavior: the guide is cached and that cache is invalidated by executable changes, which explains why a stale result is possible and how to fix it. What it omits is the shape of the cached content, though an output schema covers returns.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the exclusions and refresh condition are front-loaded. The phrasing is dense to the point of being cryptic ("Executable changes invalidate it"), but nothing is wasted.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the safety profile by annotations, so the remaining burden is small. Still, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the undefined "section" parameter is a real gap that leaves the description short of complete.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It implies the meaning of "refresh" through "refresh after updates", but the "section" parameter — which defaults to "overview" — is never mentioned, and no valid section names are enumerated, so an agent cannot construct a non-default call correctly.

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?

"Read/cache the installed Nuclei command guide" names a specific verb (read/cache) and a specific resource (the installed command guide), and "Does not scan" explicitly separates it from nuclei_execute. It stops short of differentiating it from the other nuclei_* siblings such as nuclei_capabilities or nuclei_templates, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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?

It gives one concrete usage condition — refresh after the executable changes — and one exclusion (not for scanning). But it never states when an agent should reach for this guide versus nuclei_capabilities, nuclei_plan, or nuclei_templates, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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