amass_enum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that passive mode avoids active probing and is safer/faster, and that brute_force is slow. However, it does not explain what active mode entails, potential network impact, or any side effects like storing results. Some transparency, but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and then lists parameters in a structured, easy-to-parse format. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values and prerequisites. It covers parameters well and hints at safety, but does not describe the output format, whether results are saved, or how to handle active mode. Some gaps remain.

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 provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: domain (with example), passive (mode and effect), brute_force (slow), timeout_mins (default). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds value beyond the schema's type/title definitions.

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 'In-depth subdomain enumeration using OWASP Amass', specifying the verb (enumerate), resource (subdomains), and tool. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool subfinder_enumerate, but the tool name and mention of Amass differentiate it.

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 alternatives like subfinder_enumerate or other recon tools. Parameter hints (e.g., passive is safer, brute_force is slow) imply some usage context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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