exploit_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool uses searchsploit and returns a list of matching exploits with EDB IDs. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a search tool, this is adequate. No contradictions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists arguments and return value concisely, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a 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 description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It could mention that it searches a local searchsploit database, but output schema existence reduces the need for detailed return info. Overall, complete enough for use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so fully: query is described as 'Search term (service name, CVE, software version, etc.)' and exact as 'Use exact matching (default: False)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 for exploits using searchsploit', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like exploit_details and exploit_suggest_*, which are for different purposes.

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 usage for searching exploits but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like exploit_suggest_for_service or exploit_suggest_from_nmap. No exclusions or context provided.

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