msf_session_destroy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Destroy a specific Metasploit session', which is minimally transparent. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or error states beyond what the name implies.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words—a single sentence plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured.

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 (destroy a session), but the description omits any mention of return values, success/failure indicators, or behavior when session is invalid. An output schema exists but is not visible; still, a typical agent would benefit from brief notes on what happens post-destruction.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds the phrase 'The session ID to destroy', clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema. For a single, simple parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 tool name and description clearly state 'Destroy a specific Metasploit session', providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'msf_session_destroy_all' and 'msf_session_create' by emphasizing 'specific'.

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 (e.g., msf_session_destroy_all), nor does it mention prerequisites, when not to use, or typical context. This leaves the agent without criteria for selection.

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