get_nessus_host_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or whether it reports all findings or a summary. Only the most minimal behavioral context is implied by the verb 'Get'.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a two-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, with two required undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage context, the description leaves significant gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what scan_id and host_id refer to, their expected format, or how they relate (e.g., host_id scoped within scan_id). Both required parameters are effectively undocumented beyond their names.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('vulnerability information') scoped to 'a host in a scan', which is clear enough to distinguish from listing scans or plugins. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_nessus_scan_details or get_nessus_vulnerability_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools (scan details, vulnerability details, plugins). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing hint is provided.

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