searchsploit_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool works offline, makes no target contact, and returns a structured result dict with status/titles/paths/command/mode. It also notes it is 'not scope-gated'. This is significant behavioral context, though it doesn't cover potential error conditions or database freshness.

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 brief opening summary, followed by labeled fields (USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, INPUT_DESCRIPTION, etc.) that are efficient and informative. It is slightly verbose with repeated mentions of 'offline' and 'no target contact', but every section provides useful guidance.

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 lookup tool, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, usage instructions, input examples, output structure, safety characteristics, and related tools. The presence of an output schema and the description's own output details make it fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for the query parameter, but the description compensates with a clear definition ('Free-text search terms') and concrete examples ('apache 2.4.49', 'CVE-2021-41773'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, fully clarifying the expected input format.

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 searches the offline Exploit-DB for known exploits, using specific verbs ('Search', 'Find') and a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the offline lookup capability and the use case of matching product/version/CVE, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (offline exploit lookup, no target contact) and includes examples and related tools (nuclei_scan, sqlmap_test) indicating alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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