Execute Metasploit Command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It gives no indication of potential danger, side effects, output behavior, or whether commands run in a persistent session. The word 'raw' hints at arbitrary execution, but the description does not disclose the resulting risks or expected behavior.

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 very short and free of redundancy, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise. It does not add enough value beyond the title and schema to be considered a well-structured tool definition.

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 raw command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the expected command format, what output will be returned, or any safety considerations, leaving an agent to guess important call details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'The Metasploit command to execute', and provides no syntax, examples, or accepted command formats, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 specific verb and resource: execute a raw Metasploit command. It distinguishes this general-purpose tool from the more specialized sibling tools like search-exploit or run-vuln-scan, although it does not explain exactly what 'raw' means in practice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of safer alternatives. The word 'raw' weakly implies it is for commands not covered by other tools, but this is left entirely to inference.

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