msfdb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the managed resource, setup ordering, and output nature, but omits side-effect warnings for destructive commands like 'reinit' and 'delete' that appear in the schema.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage sequence, and output. No filler, information is front-loaded, and 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 simple two-parameter wrapper, purpose, command ordering, and output are covered, and the schema documents allowed commands and default. The main gaps are the lack of destructive-command warnings and no rationale for choosing this over a sibling, but those are minor for invocaton.

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% for both parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds practical meaning to command values ('init' before first use, 'start' launches, 'status' checks), but leaves 'opts' opaque and mostly repeats schema command names.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('manages/controls') and resource ('PostgreSQL database used by Metasploit'), and names concrete commands. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like nmap, msfconsole, and msfvenom, none of which manage the Metasploit database.

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 explicit usage context: run 'init' before first use, 'start' launches the DB, 'status' checks if running. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but for a self-contained DB lifecycle tool the when-to-use guidance is clear.

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