searchsploit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits such as returning JSON when available, degrading overly specific queries, and using include_raw to avoid result capping. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or requires authentication, and 'mirror' behavior remains vague.

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 'Purpose', 'Constraints', and 'Example' sections. Every sentence provides value, and the information is front-loaded and concise without redundant phrasing.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the two actions, parameter semantics, and key constraints. The presence of '…' suggests possible missing content, and 'mirror' is not fully elaborated, but overall it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description compensates by explaining action via the enum values, include_raw as avoiding result cap, and giving an example for query_or_id. This adds practical meaning to all parameters, though the exact format for 'get' action is not specified.

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 'Search or mirror Exploit-DB entries with action=search|get', identifying the specific resource (Exploit-DB) and the two main actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like metasploit_search or web_scan, which target different resources.

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 is for searching or mirroring Exploit-DB entries, with practical constraints on query degradation and result capping. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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