nuclei_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the scanning approach, parameter defaults, and return format, which adds value. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as intrusive network requests or the need for authorization, which is notable for an active scanner.

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 opening sentence, a brief explanation of the template engine, a bulleted argument list, and a return-value note. Every section adds essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized.

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 (7 parameters, output schema, no annotations), the description covers inputs and outputs thoroughly. It explains the scan scope, filtering options, and result format. The only gap is the lack of explicit authorization/consent warnings, which is a minor omission for an active vulnerability scanner.

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%, but the description provides rich semantics for every parameter, including target, templates, severity, tags, exclude_tags, rate_limit, and timeout. It explains formats, defaults, and examples, going far beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 target for vulnerabilities using Nuclei template engine.' It further clarifies the tool's purpose by explaining it detects vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, exposed panels, CVEs, and more, distinguishing it from sibling scanners like nmap_scan or zap_active_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?

The description provides clear context that this tool scans web applications and network services, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other vulnerability scanners (e.g., nikto_scan, zap_active_scan) or include exclusions. Usage is implied by the detailed functionality, but no alternative guidance is given.

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