msf_rpc_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds real substance: data provenance (bundled catalog pinned to an upstream commit), the difference between catalog and live source, the caveat that plugins and versions can diverge, and the guarantee that unlisted methods are not blocked for msf_rpc. That is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, mode-selection and caveats follow, and the closing line is a necessary guard against over-reliance on the catalog. Five short sentences, none redundant.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers modes, provenance, and limits of the data. The only gap an agent could stumble on is how query filters results and how limit/offset paginate, which the schema leaves undocumented.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains framework_root well (pass the installed Framework root to scan source instead of the catalog), but limit, offset, and query get no treatment at all beyond their conventional names, leaving query's matching semantics undefined.

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 three concrete resources ('RPC method names, Ruby argument signatures, and authentication requirements'), and explicitly frames the tool as discovery rather than execution. The closing line about the catalog never restricting msf_rpc calls makes the boundary against the sibling msf_rpc unambiguous.

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 clearly states the two invocation modes and their defaults: leave framework_root unset to use the pinned catalog, or pass an installed Framework root to scan source instead. It also warns this is 'source discovery, not a live capability probe' so plugins/versions may differ. It stops short of telling the agent when in a workflow to call this versus msf_rpc, but the context is strong.

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