metasploit_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It notes prerequisites and the behavior that empty lists may require broader queries, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, side-effect free, or what the returned data will contain beyond 'available modules'. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for format details, but safety implications are not addressed.

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 provides useful information with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and an example, making it largely self-contained. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling search tools but is otherwise complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 compensates by explaining the query parameter can be a keyword, service name, or CVE, and includes a concrete example (vsftpd). This adds meaning beyond the bare 'query' name, though it could elaborate on syntax or wildcards.

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 searches Metasploit exploit, auxiliary, and post modules by keyword, service name, or CVE. This specific verb+resource+scope fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like metasploit_run_module or searchsploit.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool (searching for modules) and includes prerequisites (Metasploit enabled, RPC available) and a tip to broaden query if empty. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as searchsploit or when to prefer one over the other.

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