msf_process_start

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the description's added value is async behavior ('Returns immediately with process_id'), the lifecycle handoff to the process_* tools, and the isolation note about not sharing daemon sessions/jobs. It does not state the privilege context the child executable inherits or failure behavior, which would matter for arbitrary local execution.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and the no-shell constraint, then the highest-value usage distinction. Line breaks split sentences mid-clause and the closing 'cwd and env are optional' is a weak trailing afterthought, but overall it is dense with no filler.

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 values need only the 'returns process_id' note, which it provides. However, for a six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves rows/columns unexplained and does not say whether env replaces or merges with the inherited environment — both needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry all six parameters. It meaningfully defines argv (literal argv, no shell), terminal (with scenario examples), and touches cwd/env only as 'optional', while rows and columns — the PTY dimensions — get no mention at all despite being tied to the terminal=true path.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a local executable with literal argv, without a shell') and immediately clarifies scope relative to siblings: it is not a console/RPC session ('These processes do not share the RPC daemon's in-memory sessions or jobs'). An agent can distinguish this from msf_console_create and msf_rpc without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete, actionable routing with parameter values — ['msfconsole','-q'] with terminal=true for interactive PTY/IRB, ['msfvenom','--help'] with terminal=false for exact binary output — and notes other utilities work the same way. It never explicitly names msf_console_create as the alternative when a shared daemon session is wanted, which is the one obvious omission.

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