msf_run_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: non-interactive execution, session auto-kill, and the requirement for RHOSTS. This goes beyond the schema, though it could further explain output format or side effects on the target.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary verb. Parameter details are organized in bullet-like lines, and examples add clarity without bloat. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, status) and whether it creates a background job. Sibling tools like get_job_status and get_job_output suggest integration, but no linkage is provided. This gap prevents full self-sufficiency.

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 provides 0% coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples. It clarifies module path formats, the structure of options dict, and the payload usage, making the tool usable.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Run a Metasploit module non-interactively via resource file.' It clearly identifies the resource (Metasploit module) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like msf_search or msfvenom_generate by focusing on execution.

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 provides clear context: it is non-interactive, requires RHOSTS, and auto-kills sessions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage is well-scoped for an agent looking to execute a module once.

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