subfinder

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 says 'Passive subdomain enumeration', omitting critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, permissions, output format, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Important information is missing, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but informative description.

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 the complexity of subdomain enumeration and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites 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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (domain, session_id, consent) with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no explanation of these parameters, their purpose, or constraints. The agent must infer everything from names alone, which is inadequate.

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 'Passive subdomain enumeration' clearly states the tool's action and target, distinguishing it from active enumeration tools like amass or dnsrecon. However, it lacks detail on what exactly is enumerated (e.g., all subdomains?) which would make it a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are many subdomain tools (amass, dnsrecon) and the description does not explain when passive enumeration is preferable, nor does it provide any exclusions or context.

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