pentest_exploit_msf_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the key trait (check mode only, non-destructive) and the authorization gate in the engagement file, which is genuinely useful. It omits what happens on failure, whether the Metasploit service must be reachable, timeout behavior, and what the check returns.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and mode, then the non-destructive qualifier, then the prerequisite. No filler; the only cost is that space spent on brevity could have documented parameters.

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?

The authorization gate and safety profile are covered, but for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves module/target/options semantics and return behavior unexplained. An agent can find the tool but may call it incorrectly.

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 must compensate and it does not: it never explains the module name format, the target format, or the free-form 'options' object (a string-valued map that is almost certainly Metasploit datastore options). Two required parameters are left entirely to inference.

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: run a Metasploit module in CHECK mode against an in-scope target, qualified as non-destructive verification. It is distinguishable from the sibling pentest_exploit_msf_run by the explicit check-only mode, though the sibling is not named.

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 clear usage context (non-destructive verification) and an explicit precondition: rules.exploit_authorized = true in the engagement file. It stops short of naming pentest_exploit_msf_run or pentest_exploit_search as alternatives or stating when check mode is insufficient.

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