run_exploit

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

No annotations are present, and the description gives no behavioral insight. It fails to disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, creates sessions, or has side effects. For a tool named 'run_exploit', the agent needs to know if it triggers real exploits, waits for output, or modifies system state. The description is completely silent.

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 short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It does not front-load any useful information beyond the name. Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, Metasploit context), the description is too brief to be helpful.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter description coverage, and a vague description, the tool is thoroughly incomplete. Sibling tools like 'exploit_smb' or 'run_auxiliary' may have more context, but this description leaves the agent without any understanding of return values, side effects, or how to configure the exploit properly.

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%, and the tool description adds no meaning to the four parameters. 'module_path', 'target_host', 'target_port', and 'options' are named but not explained—e.g., what format for module_path (file path or Metasploit identifier?), target_host (IP or domain?), or what keys options accepts. The agent has no guidance beyond parameter names.

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 'Run a Metasploit exploit module' identifies the verb and resource clearly, but it is nearly tautological with the tool name 'run_exploit' and lacks specificity to distinguish it from siblings like 'exploit_smb' or 'run_network_exploit'. The purpose is vague, leaving the agent uncertain about which exploit module or context is intended.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many exploit-related tools (e.g., 'exploit_smb', 'run_network_exploit', 'run_auxiliary'), but the description does not indicate prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This forces the agent to guess or rely on the name alone.

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