msf_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavior. It discloses the output (module paths, disclosure dates, ranks, descriptions, table) and implies a read-only search operation. It does not state restrictions, failure modes, or whether any setup (e.g., msfdb) is required, but those are not major for a search tool.

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 definition is front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second. It is slightly padded by the redundant final 'Output: table...' sentence that echoes the earlier return-value sentence, but overall it is tight.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the search surface, when to use it, what is returned, and how to continue with msf_info. There is no important missing context 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%, so the schema already documents the query and module_type fields well. The description lightly reinforces the search dimensions ('keyword, CVE, platform, or module type') and the module_type filter, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Search the Metasploit module database') and enumerates search dimensions (keyword, CVE, platform, module type). It also fixes the resource and mentions the exact return fields, and the msf_info pointer distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use BEFORE opening msfconsole to find relevant modules for a target.' It also names the next step and alternative tool, msf_info, so an agent knows the workflow.

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