scan-vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses default safe script categories, potential security alerts, and the return type. However, it states 'safe script categories by default' while the schema says the default category is 'vuln', creating an internal inconsistency that undermines transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Returns' section is slightly redundant with the output schema, but it is brief and does not waste space.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description covers purpose, default behavior, a warning, and return type. The internal safe/vuln inconsistency and lack of explicit sibling comparisons are minor gaps, but overall it provides sufficient context for a tool with an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only mentions CVE identifiers in results, which relates to output rather than parameters.

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 it scans for known vulnerabilities using NSE, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan-ports and detect-services by focusing on vulnerability detection and CVE identifiers.

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 ('Scan for known vulnerabilities') but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools. The authorization warning is a legal reminder, not guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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