contrastapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails entirely to indicate whether this performs passive enumeration (OSINT) or active scanning, rate limits, data sources used, or what the return structure looks like.

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?

While brief at one word, this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single word wastes the opportunity to convey critical context about enumeration methodology or return values.

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?

Completely inadequate for a security reconnaissance tool with no output schema and no annotations. A single word description for a tool that likely performs passive/active enumeration against potentially sensitive infrastructure is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 0% (empty string for the 'domain' parameter), yet the description provides no compensation. It does not explain expected format (FQDN vs bare domain), validation rules, or provide examples to clarify the single required parameter.

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 'Subdomains' is essentially a noun fragment that restates the tool's name (subdomain_enum) without specifying the action (enumeration/discovery) or scope. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like dns_records, ct_logs, or domain_report which also interact with domain infrastructure.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_records (which retrieves DNS records) or ct_logs (Certificate Transparency logs that may also list subdomains). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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