dns_brute_force

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. Without annotations, it fails to mention if the tool is destructive, affects network traffic, requires permissions, or has rate limiting, leaving the agent uninformed about potential side effects.

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 concise with three clear lines: purpose, parameter descriptions, and return type. It is front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter roles. However, it lacks details on the return value structure (e.g., keys in the dict), which would help the agent interpret results.

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?

The description adds meaning to the parameters beyond the input schema titles: 'target' is defined as 'the target domain to scan' and 'args' as 'Additional Nmap command-line arguments.' While this is helpful, it is minimal and does not explain valid values or constraints.

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 explicitly states the action ('Perform DNS brute-force') and the resource ('subdomains of the specified target'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arp_discovery or syn_scan, which focus on different network discovery methods.

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, such as when DNS brute-force is appropriate or when to prefer other discovery methods. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, expected outcomes, or usage scenarios.

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