run_auxiliary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool runs a module but omits critical details such as whether it requires an active Metasploit session, if it is destructive (e.g., could crash services), what the execution environment is, or how results are returned. This lack of transparency leaves the agent uncertain about safety and dependencies.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief to adequately describe the tool's function and has no structure like a summary or use case, making it minimally acceptable but not earning a higher score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (no output schema, nested object in options, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., running Metasploit service), what constitutes a valid module path, or how to troubleshoot errors. Agent must guess critical context.

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 for the parameters. The description does not explain 'module_path' (e.g., what format, where to find valid paths) or 'options' (e.g., what properties are expected, examples of common options). Without this, the agent cannot infer proper parameter values from the schema alone.

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 states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'Metasploit auxiliary module', which is moderately clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_exploit' or 'run_network_exploit', making the specific purpose slightly ambiguous without external knowledge.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'search_exploits', 'run_exploit', and 'list_sessions', an agent would benefit from context about when to choose an auxiliary module over an exploit or other actions, but none is provided.

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