metasploit_run_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the module is run through the RPC API and gives an example, but it does not disclose execution model (synchronous vs background), potential side effects of running an exploit, required permissions, or what happens to sessions/jobs on completion. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that can run exploits.

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 concise and well-structured with Purpose, Constraints, and Example sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the example makes the invocation pattern concrete without unnecessary elaboration.

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 five parameters, nested objects, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential invocation guidance and provides a concrete example. It does not detail differences between auxiliary/post modules or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions reduces the need for more. Still, a bit more context on execution behavior would improve completeness.

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 value by explaining that options should contain datastore options like RHOSTS/RPORT/TARGETURI and that payload/payload_options are used for exploits, which helps an agent construct correct argument combinations beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 'Run a Metasploit exploit, auxiliary, or post module through the RPC API,' identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling metasploit_search, metasploit_manage, metasploit_generate_payload, and metasploit_start_listener by focusing on executing a module rather than searching, managing, generating, or listening.

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 useful constraints ('module_type is usually exploit, auxiliary, or post', 'options should contain module datastore options') and clarifies payload usage for exploits, giving clear context for argument preparation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, so it only partially addresses usage selection.

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