kali_run_searchsploit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only says the search is offline via Searchsploit. It does not disclose what the search returns, whether it invokes a new process, or any execution constraints.

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 short sections with no fluff, front-loads the purpose, and keeps the parameter documentation immediately accessible in an 'Args' block.

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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the core invocation is adequately specified. However, the missing usage guidance and minimal behavioral detail leave an agent with only the tool name and one sentence to decide when and how confidently it should be used.

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 no parameter description (0% coverage), so the description's 'Args' section compensates by explaining query as 'Search keywords' and giving concrete examples for Apache, WordPress, and Linux Kernel. This gives an agent a clear template for the only required parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'Searches Exploit-DB offline database via Searchsploit,' which clearly differentiates it from siblings like nmap, sqlmap, or gobuster. The scope is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternative Kali tools or the sibling kali_search_tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions; the 'offline database' phrase only weakly implies the use case.

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