enum_subdominios_subfinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the enumeration is passive, implying a non-intrusive operation Android lacks details on output format, potential rate limits, or network impact. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the passive nature, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. It states the action, method, and usage condition without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with one parameter fully described in the schemaaine and an output schema present àThe description adds the key behavioral context (passive recon) and usage context (when to use: public domain, after Nmap). It doesn't explain the output details, but that's covered by the output schema. It's sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 fully describes the 'domain' parameter with an example. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it just reiterates the concept of a public domain. Thus, the description provides no extra value over the schema, so a baseline 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 states precisely that the tool enumerates subdomains via passive reconnaissance using Subfinder. This clearly identifies the action (enumeration), the resource (subdomains), and the method (passive, Subfinder), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_portas_nmap or scan_diretorios_gobuster.

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 explicit guidance: use when the target is a public domain and after the initial Nmap scan. This gives clear context and a workflow trigger, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for subdomain enumeration, but among the siblings there is no other subdomain tool, so it's adequate.

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