Get Nuclei Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by explaining the return content (template metadata, severity, dork queries) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. Given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 long, each serving a distinct purpose: statement of main output, list of returned items, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (metadata, severity, dorks), specifies the valid input types (CVE/EIP), and provides a usage context. No additional information is necessary for correct invocation.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter description (the schema's description field already explains the CVE/EIP identifier format). The description repeats 'Accepts both CVE-IDs and EIP-IDs' without adding new meaning or format details. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not further compensate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Nuclei scanner templates and recon dorks for a vulnerability'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing the output (template metadata, severity, verification, tags, and dork queries) and explicitly stating its use case for planning scanning or reconnaissance. This differentiates it from related tools like get_exploit_code or get_vulnerability.

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 states 'Use this to plan scanning or reconnaissance', which gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools provide implicit contrast, but the description itself lacks direct exclusion guidance. A score of 4 reflects strong usage context without explicit negative examples.

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