pentest_vuln_nuclei

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two behaviors beyond the schema: results are persisted as findings, and the nuclei binary must be installed. It omits scan duration, whether it is intrusive/active, permission requirements, and how many findings or what format is returned.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the target, followed by the persistence behavior and the dependency. Nothing is redundant.

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 five-parameter scanner with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what 'tags', 'severity', or 'record' do, or what to expect from the scan.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'target' and implicitly 'templates' are touched; 'tags', 'severity' (default medium,high,critical), and 'record' (default true) are unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: run nuclei templates against an in-scope target, with the side effect that hits become findings. This separates it from sibling scanners like pentest_vuln_nmap_preset, pentest_vuln_wpscan, and pentest_vuln_testssl, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'Against an in-scope target' and '(requires nuclei)' imply a scope-check prerequisite and an external binary dependency, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never says when to choose nuclei over nmap, wpscan, or testssl, nor when not to use it.

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