Dns Permute

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

Goes beyond annotations by clearly warning that the tool is aggressive, requires human approval, and performs brute-force DNS resolution; however, it does not detail potential side effects like high query volume or rate limiting.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear warning and then stating the action and purpose without unnecessary fluff.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description lacks essential invocation details such as accepted target formats, meaning of the limit parameter, and expected output, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 description provides no explanation for the 'target' or 'limit' parameters, leaving the agent to guess that target is a domain and limit is a count; schema itself has no descriptions, so this is a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates subdomain permutations with alterx and resolves them with dnsx, and explicitly distinguishes its intent (finding hosts unseen by passive sources) from other DNS tools.

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?

Mentions that this is an aggressive brute-force pattern requiring approval and contrasts DNS with HTTP, but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like dns_resolve or subdomain_enum.

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