Nikto Scan

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

The description extensively details behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is aggressive, noisy, and gated, requires human approval, enforces time bounds (max_minutes clamped to 30), uses pacing from global rules, and explicitly excludes Denial of Service tests. These details align with and expand upon the annotations (destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true).

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 opens with a concise, front-loaded summary, then delves into details. While informative, the later sections use poetic wordplay ('aggressive, and gated', 'two bounds apply') that adds length without essential information. It is not overly long, but trimming would improve clarity and directness.

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 description covers key operational context: approval requirement, time limits, global pacing, and excluded tests. It does not explicitly explain target format (URL vs host) or output details, but the output schema is present and target is self-explanatory. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to safely invoke the 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 description explains max_minutes as a time limit clamped to 30, which adds meaningful context to the schema (which only shows an integer default). It does not explain target, but the term 'web server' and the tool's name make its purpose obvious. Since one of two parameters is enriched, this compensates for the low schema coverage stated in signals.

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: 'Scan a web server with nikto for dangerous files and misconfiguration.' It uses a specific verb (scan), identifies the resource (web server), and specifies the scope (dangerous files and misconfiguration). This distinguishes it from other scanners by name (nikto) and intent.

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 contextual warnings (aggressive, requires human approval, loud, may trip WAF) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like nuclei_scan or wapiti_scan. It does imply this is a heavy scanner, but lacks explicit 'use this when...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer when nikto is preferred over alternatives.

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