msf_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does indicate this is a read-only inspection operation by saying 'Display detailed information' and describes the output structure. However, it does not state prerequisites such as whether the module search index must be loaded or whether any state is modified.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then gives workflow context, then lists output details. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the expected output, and when to use it in the flow. The schema covers parameter format, and the description covers return value expectations.

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 already documents the single parameter module_path with full descriptions and examples, so description-level parameter guidance adds little beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'option table' is relevant output context but does not add more to parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Display detailed information') and names the exact resource (a specific Metasploit module) and what is included: description, options, required settings, targets, and references. It differentiates itself from the sibling msf_search by being the follow-up inspection step.

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 explicitly says 'Use after msf_search to understand what a module does and what parameters it needs before running it,' which gives clear sequencing and context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or negative cases, but the workflow placement is clear.

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