msf_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that commands are executed sequentially and that output is combined, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network activity, destructive actions), error handling behavior (what happens if a command fails), or prerequisites like initialized Metasploit database. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and efficient: two sentences plus an output note. The primary purpose is front-loaded, with use cases and behavior clearly stated. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how the input script works, and the output format. It lacks details on error handling or potential side effects, but given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for other needs, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% and the parameter script_path has a description ('Path to .rc resource script file'). The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining that resource files contain msfconsole commands (one per line), which goes beyond the schema. This enhances the agent's understanding of the parameter format and expected content.

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 the tool executes Metasploit resource scripts (.rc files) for batch automation, using a specific verb ('Execute') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like msfconsole (interactive) and msfvenom (payload generation) by focusing on pre-written multi-step sequences. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 lists use cases: running pre-written attack sequences, setting up multi-handlers, and automating complex module chains. It also clarifies that resource files contain msfconsole commands executed sequentially, giving context on how to prepare inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for single commands, use msfconsole), leaving some inference to the agent.

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