kali_exploit_searchsploit_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 mentions that SearchSploit is a 'command-line search tool,' which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose critical traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of exploits, details). This is inadequate for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet points for search options, and examples. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the example section could be more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage distinctions from siblings. It is minimally viable for a search tool but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by listing 'Search Options' that map to parameters (e.g., platform, type, cve) and providing examples, but does not explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search the Exploit Database for public exploits and vulnerability information.' It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'Exploit Database,' distinguishing it from siblings like kali_exploit_msfvenom_generate (generate exploits) and kali_exploit_searchsploit_examine (examine exploits).

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 through the 'Search Options' section, listing scenarios like searching by software name, CVE, platform, or exploit type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kali_exploit_searchsploit_examine) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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