searchsploit_get_path

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 indicates a read-only operation ('Get') but does not mention error handling when the exploit is not found, dependencies like a local Exploit-DB installation, or any network/offline behavior. This is a simple lookup, but some gaps remain.

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 only two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and one explaining the parameter. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information, earning a high score.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, it does not describe the return value format or potential failure cases, which would be helpful for an agent to know when invoking the tool.

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 only a field name and type, while the description adds that edb_id is an Exploit-DB ID number and gives an example ('39446'). This meaningfully supplements the schema, though it does not detail format constraints or accepted ranges.

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 retrieves the full filesystem path for an exploit based on its EDB-ID. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the function is distinct from siblings like searchsploit_search, which focuses on searching exploits rather than retrieving paths.

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?

Usage context is implied: if you have an EDB-ID and need the filesystem path, this tool is appropriate. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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