subfinder_enumerate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions passive behavior, the all_sources trade-off (slower but thorough), thread usage for concurrency, and the output_json flag for structured output. However, it does not disclose the default output format (though schema default is true), what fields appear in JSONL, or any dependencies like API keys. This is moderate 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 and front-loaded with its core purpose. The bullet-point parameter explanations are each useful and directly tied to the schema. No word is wasted, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only mentions that output_json gives JSONL, but does not describe the JSONL structure or what data is included (e.g., hostname, IP, sources). It also omits prerequisites. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in return-value clarity.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does this thoroughly: domain gives an example, all_sources explains the speed/thoroughness trade-off, threads explains concurrency, and output_json explains the structured output benefit. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema and fully compensates for the coverage 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 it performs 'Passive subdomain enumeration using subfinder' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like amass_enum, which also perform subdomain enumeration, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish itself.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'passive' which implies a use case, but does not state exclusions or contrast with other subdomain enumeration tools (e.g., amass_enum). This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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