kali_web_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core action (Nikto scan) but does not mention potential side effects like network intrusion, expected runtime, dependencies on the Kali container being running, or output format. This is minimal information for a security scanning tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word adds meaning; there is no filler or redundant content.

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 single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks operational context such as scan duration, whether the target must be reachable, or what the output represents. As a security scan tool, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 description covers the only param 'url' fully with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that a URL is the target. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('Nikto web vulnerability scan against a URL using the Kali container'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kali_nmap or kali_dir_enum, which target different scanning activities.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when another Kali tool would be more appropriate. The only implied context is that it is for Nikto scanning.

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