amass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's methodology (OSINT + active DNS brute-force), the speed tradeoff, and the output format ('discovered assets with their sources and relationships'). It doesn't mention potential network load or alerting from active techniques, but it gives enough behavioral context for safe selection.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and output. Every clause earns its place—there is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool with an output schema absent, the description covers purpose, method, usage context, alternatives, and output. It lacks an example invocation or notes on prerequisites (e.g., API dependencies for OSINT sources), but the definition is otherwise self-sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does repeat the active/passive distinction that maps to opts ('-active'), but it adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents. The description doesn't explain mode='intel' further, but the schema already covers it.

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 uses specific verbs and concrete resources: 'Comprehensive network mapping and attack surface discovery', 'Discovers subdomains, IP ranges, ASNs, and related domains.' It explicitly contrasts itself with subfinder ('More thorough than subfinder but slower'), making it distinguishable from the closest sibling without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for deep domain mapping'), describes its methodology, and provides a direct alternative and condition: 'Use subfinder for quick passive-only results.' The description leaves no ambiguity about tool selection between amass and subfinder.

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