searchsploit_query

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it queries a local offline database and returns a list with path/type/platform. This is adequate transparency for a read-only search tool, but it omits prerequisites (e.g., SearchSploit installed, database updated) and does not discuss edge cases like empty results or malformed queries.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose, a short sentence on use case, an Args block with examples, and a Returns note. Every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the primary action and remains concise while covering necessary details.

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 description is comprehensive for a search tool: it states purpose, usage context, all parameters, and return value shape. The only gap is a missing note about installation/update prerequisites for SearchSploit, which is a minor omission given the otherwise complete picture.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully with an 'Args:' section explaining each parameter with examples ('Apache 2.4.49', 'CVE-2021-44228'), clarifications (exact_match, exclude_dos recommended), and a list of valid type_filter values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Search the ExploitDB offline database using SearchSploit' and further explains 'Queries the local ExploitDB database for exploits matching the search terms.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like msf_search or cve_lookup.

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 provides clear context: 'Useful for quickly finding public exploits for identified software versions.' This gives the agent a strong signal for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses the full exclusions/alternatives guidance.

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