api_nuclei_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not specify if the scanning is read-only, whether it sends traffic that could be considered intrusive, if authentication is needed, or what the output contains (despite having an output schema). This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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?

Description is concise: one sentence followed by a clear argument list. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the purpose. Efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the scan does with the templates, what results look like, or any prerequisites (e.g., network access). The agent may need additional context to use it effectively, especially given the complexity of scanning.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaning by listing the parameters with brief explanations: 'url: Target URL', 'tags: Nuclei template tags (default: api)', 'severity: Filter by severity (critical, high, medium, low)'. It mentions the default for tags and acceptable values for severity, which is helpful but lacks details like URL format or tag examples.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run Nuclei templates against API endpoints', specifying the verb (run) and resource (Nuclei templates on API endpoints). It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools like api_ffuf_fuzz or api_auth_bypass_test, which focus on fuzzing or bypassing auth. However, it could be more explicit about being a vulnerability scanner.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be preferable. With many API-focused sibling tools, explicit usage context is needed.

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