metasploit_run

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

No annotations provided. The description explains timing and job_id return for long runs, but fails to disclose potential side effects of running exploits (e.g., system modification, need for privileges, risk of crashes). The agent cannot infer safety or permission requirements from this description.

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?

Two sentences – the first is somewhat redundant (repeats tool name), the second packs useful timing guidance. Could be more concise without the prefix. Overall acceptable but not tight.

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?

With 8 parameters, a required 'module', and an output schema (not shown), the description covers timing but omits module selection, options syntax, and return value shape. No mentions of prerequisites or environment. Lacks completeness for a powerful tool like Metasploit.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) and on_timeout semantics. But critical parameters like 'module', 'action', and 'options' are left unexplained (options is a free-form object). The description adds value for timing but not for core execution parameters.

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 identifies the tool as running Metasploit modules (via 'module' parameter) and mentions timing control. However, it opens with 'Kali Agent MCP tool: metasploit_run' which is redundant, and the core action of running a Metasploit exploit is not explicitly stated. Still, it distinguishes from sibling scanning tools like nmap_scan.

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?

Provides specific guidance on when to use different on_timeout values (background vs synchronous work). But no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to run Metasploit vs nmap). The advice is useful for timing but lacks broader context.

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