searchsploit

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 explains the output ('exploit title, path, and sometimes the exploit file content') and implies a non-destructive search operation. It does not explicitly state that it only searches and does not execute exploits, but the wording is sufficiently clear.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, when to use it, what output to expect, and how it relates to a sibling tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining valid query forms (software name, version, CVE, description) and how to position the query in a workflow ('after identifying software versions'). The opts parameter is well documented in the schema itself.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the Exploit Database'), and the kinds of inputs accepted ('software name, version, CVE number, or vulnerability description'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling discovery/exploitation tools, and specifically contrasts it with msf_search.

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 says when to use it ('Use after identifying software versions from nmap, whatweb, etc.') and names an alternative ('Pair with msf_search for Metasploit module equivalents'). This gives an agent actionable decision criteria.

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