msf_module_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is informational ('Get detailed information') and lists what is returned (options, targets, CVE references, description). This sets expectations that it is a read-only lookup, not an execution tool. It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites, but for a benign info query, the description provides sufficient transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, then an Args section for the parameter, and a Returns section for the output. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the input format with example, and a summary of the return content. It could add a note about module validity or local vs remote lookup, but given the complexity, it is adequately complete.

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 only lists 'module_path' as a string with no description, giving 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that it is the 'Full module path' and providing a concrete example. This gives the agent all necessary information to correctly populate the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific Metasploit module.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific Metasploit module'), and the example path demonstrates the exact scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like msf_search (which searches for modules) and msf_run_module (which executes modules).

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed info about a specific module, as indicated by 'Get detailed information' and the return listing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple lookup tool. A brief note about using msf_search to find module paths would elevate it to a 5, but it is not necessary for basic usage.

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