scan_vulnerabilidades_nikto

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the scan is read‑only, whether it could affect the target (e.g., DDoS risk, network load), how long it might take, or whether credentials are needed. The description only lists detection capabilities, leaving the agent unaware of potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 succinct (~60 words), front-loaded with the main action and tool name, followed by a usage condition, and then a bulleted list of detections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a comprehensive web scanner) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential what and when. However, it does not mention how results are surfaced (e.g., saved findings for later retrieval via listar_findings), which would be helpful for workflow orchestration. Still, for a scanning tool, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both target_url and evasion have clear descriptions with examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter context (e.g., formats, constraints) beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high 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 it executes a web vulnerability scan using Nikto, naming the specific tool and its purpose. It also enumerates detection categories (sensitive files, missing headers, dangerous HTTP methods, outdated versions, XSS/injection vectors, weak SSL/TLS), which distinguishes it from sibling scanners like scan_nuclei or scan_sql_injection_sqlmap.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use: 'Use quando o Nmap identificar portas HTTP/HTTPS abertas.' This provides a clear trigger condition based on Nmap findings. While it doesn't name alternative tools for when not to use, the condition is specific enough to guide the agent.

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