kali_web_gobuster_dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'DNS brute-forcing with wordlists,' which implies aggressive scanning behavior, but doesn't disclose potential impacts like network noise, rate limiting risks, legal considerations, or typical output format. For a security tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Enumerate subdomains using DNS brute-forcing with wordlists.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant information, and every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and method concisely.

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 tool's complexity (a security scanning tool with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like potential destructiveness, authorization needs, or output format, which are critical for a brute-forcing tool. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective use without additional context.

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 schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'wordlist' selection affects results or what 'threads' optimization entails). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic context.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Enumerate subdomains using DNS brute-forcing with wordlists.' It specifies the verb ('enumerate'), resource ('subdomains'), and method ('DNS brute-forcing with wordlists'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'kali_web_gobuster_dir', which appears to be a directory enumeration tool rather than DNS subdomain enumeration, so the distinction is implied but not stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'kali_web_nikto_scan' or 'kali_web_nuclei_scan' for web scanning, or specify scenarios where DNS brute-forcing is preferred over other subdomain discovery methods. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description but not explicitly stated.

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