msf_module_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful note that option schemas come from msf_rpc rather than from this tool, but it provides no additional context about output content, authentication, or error behavior.

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 sentences with zero waste and the core purpose front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves substantive gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. However, for a tool with two required, entirely undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: it gives no module_type values, module_name format, or invocation guidance.

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?

Both required parameters, module_type and module_name, have 0% schema description coverage and no enums. The description does not explain valid module_type values or the expected module_name format, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema semantics.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return module metadata.' It also distinguishes the tool from msf_rpc for option schemas, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from msf_module_search or msf_module_execute.

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?

It gives one useful routing hint: use msf_rpc module.options for the option schema. However, it does not state when an agent should choose msf_module_info over sibling tools such as msf_module_search or msf_module_execute.

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