scan_nuclei

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the detection purpose and the Nikto sequencing; it does not mention that Nuclei sends active requests, potential impact on the target, or whether it only identifies rather than exploits vulnerabilities.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended efficiently.

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 tool has a full input schema and an output schema, so return values and parameters are covered. However, with no annotations, the description lacks behavioral caveats and prerequisites, making it adequate but not fully complete for a network-scanning tool.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including examples and defaults. The description adds only the general 'templates' context, which aligns with the tags parameter but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter explanations.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Detecta CVEs e vulnerabilidades conhecidas via templates usando Nuclei.' It clearly names Nuclei and the vulnerability-detection scope, and the follow-up 'Use após o Nikto' distinguishes it from the sibling Nikto scanner.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after Nikto, to cover specific CVEs based on identified versions. This gives clear contextual sequencing, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools beyond Nikto.

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