msf_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-interactive and returns immediately, which is useful for agent expectations regarding job creation or waiting. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects. For a search operation this is adequate but minimal, lacking richer behavioral context such as whether it accesses a local database or network.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word is functional: it states the action, the resource, the mechanism (resource file), a performance benefit, query examples, and the non-interactive behavior. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive enough: it explains what it does, how it works, query format, and the fact that it is non-interactive. The only missing piece is what the return value looks like (e.g., module names, paths), but this is not critical for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has only one required 'query' string with 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify its meaning. It does so with examples ('ms17-010', 'eternalblue', 'type:exploit platform:windows') that illustrate both simple and advanced queries. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not fully explain the query syntax or return behavior.

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 searches Metasploit modules by keyword, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Metasploit modules'). It also gives concrete query examples, and the phrase 'using a resource file (faster than -x)' distinguishes it from direct msf console usage. Among siblings, it clearly differs from msf_run_module (which runs modules) and searchsploit_search (which searches Exploit-DB).

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 implies usage for quick, non-interactive searches by mentioning 'faster than -x' and 'Returns immediately'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Since the sibling list includes searchsploit_search and msf_run_module, a more explicit 'when to use vs. those' would have been stronger, but the provided context is clear enough for the intended purpose.

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