nuclei_plan

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

Annotations already indicate this is non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds useful behavioral context: the plan expires, the token is one-time, and scanning must be enabled. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, key constraints, and a prerequisite. There is 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?

For a tool with a nested request schema and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and prerequisites well. It does not explicitly connect the generated plan/token to the nuclei_execute sibling, but the workflow is reasonably inferable from the tool naming and 'one-time approval token' phrasing.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond indirectly aligning 'expiring' with ttl_seconds and 'exact' with template/severity selection. The property names in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description adds little field-level value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and specifies the resource ('an exact, expiring Nuclei plan and one-time approval token'). It clearly differentiates from sibling 'nuclei_execute' by focusing on plan/token creation rather than execution.

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 implies usage context through the plan/token workflow and gives the prerequisite 'Scanning must be enabled.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus nuclei_execute or any other sibling, nor does it give exclusions.

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