nemesis_scan

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by adding specificity: 'only reads what a browser could see' and 'Version detection is best-effort' disclose reliability and access limitations. It also clarifies that CVEs are 'real published' and that the scan is passive. These are valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: stating the main function, reinforcing safety/behavior, and providing version guidance plus a pointer for deeper reports. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the key return elements (detected stack, CVEs, Nemesis protection status). It also covers version handling and points to a deeper report for additional compliance needs. It does not detail error scenarios or output structure, but for a simple scan tool with good annotations, this is nearly 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 already fully describes both parameters (url and version) with 100% coverage. The description's mention of passing the known version to sharpen the CVE match largely mirrors the schema's description for the version parameter, adding no new semantic information. Hence the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Passively fingerprint a public website or API URL' and lists the three outputs (detected stack, CVEs, Nemesis protection status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nemesis_protect or nemesis_explain, which serve different functions.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for a quick, passive, browser-level scan) and directs users to an external URL for a deeper compliance/PCI report. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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