kali_web_nikto_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive' scanning but lacks details on permissions required, potential impact (e.g., whether it's intrusive or safe for production), rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('comprehensive web server scanner') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 a security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., intrusiveness, permissions), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a context with multiple scanning alternatives.

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 all parameters (target, port, ssl, tuning, timeout) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for tuning options or context on default values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as a 'comprehensive web server scanner for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and security issues,' which specifies the verb (scan), resource (web server), and scope (vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, security issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling web scanning tools like kali_web_nuclei_scan or kali_web_wpscan_scan, which likely have overlapping 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for web scanning (e.g., kali_web_nuclei_scan, kali_web_sqlmap_test), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using kali_web_nikto_scan, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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