kali_web_nuclei_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'vulnerability scanner' which implies potentially intrusive/destructive actions, but doesn't warn about risks, permissions needed, rate limits, or output format. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 communicates the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about being a template-based vulnerability scanner.

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 vulnerability scanning tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like what the scan output looks like, whether it's passive vs active scanning, potential impact on targets, or error conditions. The combination of security tool complexity and lack of structured metadata requires more comprehensive description.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond schema defaults, or practical usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'template-based vulnerability scanner' with 'extensive CVE coverage and custom templates support', which specifies the verb (scan), resource (vulnerabilities), and key capabilities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nikto_scan or sqlmap_test by emphasizing template-based scanning and CVE coverage, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all web scanning tools.

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 web scanning siblings (nikto_scan, sqlmap_test, wpscan_scan, etc.), there's no indication of specific scenarios, target types, or comparative strengths/weaknesses that would help an agent choose appropriately.

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