msf_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify the return value format (e.g., boolean or module details), side effects, or any rate limits. The tool is a read operation but lacks clarity on output.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose: verb, resource, and contextual recommendation.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, module name, or details), leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result. This is a significant gap given the lack of output schema.

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 100% and the parameter description is adequate. The tool description ('Check if a Metasploit exploit module exists for a CVE') adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's 'CVE ID' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks for Metasploit exploit module existence for a given CVE, and adds interpretive value by noting weaponization and patching priority. Distinguishes from sibling tools like exploit_search by focusing specifically on Metasploit modules.

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?

Description implies usage for determining patching priority but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like exploit_search or nuclei_check. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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