nikto_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses Nikto's specific checks, explains tuning categories and the default 'x6' (everything except DoS), and notes timeout override. It does not mention potential network impact or permission requirements, but overall it reveals the tool's behavior well beyond the bare action.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, a concise bullet-like explanation of Nikko's checks, an Args list with helpful details, and a brief Returns line. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format makes scanning easy.

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 the tool's purpose, all five parameters, the return type (list of findings with descriptions and references), and the default tuning behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly given the output schema and no annotations.

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%, yet the description compensates fully. Every parameter (target, tuning, ssl, port, timeout) is explained with e.g. tuning value mappings, default behavior, and the note that port auto-detects from URL. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Scan a web server for vulnerabilities using Nikto.' It further details the types of issues checked (outdated software, dangerous files, default credentials, misconfigurations), clearly distinguishing this from sibling scanners like nmap_scan or nuclei_scan.

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?

Usage context is implied by the first sentence—use this to scan web servers for vulnerabilities—but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer Nikto over alternatives (e.g., nuclei_scan, zap_active_scan) or mention any exclusions. No direct 'when/when-not' guidance is provided.

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