nuclei_scan

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

The description discloses that it executes vulnerability scans, returns a structured dict with status, findings, command and mode, and requires templates to be present. It also states prerequisites about host authorization. However, it does not mention potential side effects like active network traffic, but 'vulnerability check' implies that. With no annotations, it carries the burden and does so reasonably.

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 contains redundant metadata sections that repeat the same information (INPUT_DESCRIPTION vs Args, OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION vs Returns, USECASE vs first sentence). While the core one-liner is front-loaded and effective, the overall block is longer than necessary.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage instructions, prerequisites, parameter descriptions, output format, and an example. Given the presence of an output schema and the scanner's complexity, it is fully 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?

The schema lacks descriptions, but the description provides complete parameter semantics: target is a URL that must be in scope, severity and tags are optional comma-separated filters, with an example. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Run template-based vulnerability checks against an in-scope target (nuclei)' and identifies the use case as detecting known CVEs, misconfigurations and exposures. This distinguishes it from sibling scanners like nikto_scan and nmap_scan.

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 explicit usage instructions (ensure in scope, provide URL, optionally filter by severity/tags) and prerequisites (templates present). It lists related tools but does not explicitly contrast when to use this vs alternatives, though the specific purpose implies when.

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