tools_assetfinder

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states 'Execute assetfinder.' without mentioning whether this is a read-only scan, what output it produces, whether network requests are made, or any side effects. There is no behavioral disclosure beyond the act of execution.

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 the description is short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structure or meaningful content, essentially repeating the tool name in a sentence. It does not earn its place because it provides no useful information.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an empty description beyond 'Execute assetfinder.' There is no context about expected behavior, return values, or usage scenarios. This is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially given the complexity of a command execution tool.

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 schema has two parameters (domain and additional_args) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to guess what 'domain' means or how to construct additional_args. No semantic value is added beyond the raw schema.

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 'Execute assetfinder.' merely restates the tool name with a generic verb, providing no information about what assetfinder actually does (e.g., subdomain enumeration). It does not distinguish this tool from sibling reconnaissance tools like tools_subfinder or tools_amass, as it lacks any functional context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it is appropriate for, or how it compares to alternatives. The description offers zero usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting it over other tools.

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