kali_whois

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates the function without mentioning that this is a network-querying operation, whether it is read-only, or what output format to expect. This leaves the agent without important safety or performance context.

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, clear, and efficient sentence. It states the core action and target without any repetitive or extraneous language, making it easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately states the function, but it lacks behavioral notes, usage context, or output expectations. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, a bit more detail would help the agent understand what to expect from the 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 input schema already fully describes the sole parameter 'target' as 'Domain or IP to look up', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond repeating the target type, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Run a whois lookup') and the target ('domain or IP address'), with the scope ('via Kali'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kali_nmap and kali_web_scan, which serve different security-scanning purposes.

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 does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, an agent is not told whether this is appropriate for passive reconnaissance or if other Kali tools should be preferred for active scanning.

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