pentest_exploit_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It successfully discloses crucial traits: the source of the data (local exploit-db), its operational mode (read-only), and its scope (no target contact).

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 extremely concise, utilizing two short sentences to cover the function, source, and operational constraints without any wasted language.

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 search tool with only two simple parameters, the description provides all necessary context regarding its execution environment and limitations.

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?

The schema is simple, and the description focuses on the tool's function rather than the parameters themselves. It adds context to the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema implies.

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 ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource being acted upon ('local exploit-db archive (searchsploit)'). It is clearly distinguishable from related OSINT or specific vulnerability scanning tools in the sibling list.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly list 'when-not' scenarios, it provides clear context that this tool is for internal reference (local archive search) rather than active target scanning, providing sufficient guidance for the agent.

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