recon_amass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the operational modes, that active=False means passive mode, that brute=True enables brute force, and the potentially long runtime. It misses details like output format or side effects, but the key behavioral traits for a subdomain enumeration tool are covered.

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 compact and well-organized into Purpose, Constraints, and Example sections. Each sentence adds useful information without fluff, and the example is directly actionable for an agent.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose, modes, constraints, runtime expectations, and provides an example. The only notable omission is extra_args, and it does not explicitly mention when to prefer lighter recon tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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. It explains domain, active, and brute: active=False uses passive mode, and brute=True enables brute force. However, extra_args is completely undocumented, leaving one of four parameters unexplained, which is a clear gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate subdomains with amass' and explicitly names the three execution modes (passive, active, brute-force). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recon_dns and recon_whois, which serve different recon 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 provides concrete usage context: it requires a domain, explains mode selection via active and brute flags, and warns that the tool is heavy and can take up to 20 minutes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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