Subdomain Enum

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing critical runtime behaviors: amass can run 15 minutes with zero results without API keys, it spawns an amass engine child that escapes the process-group kill and keeps running after timeout, and the tool set is discovered dynamically. These are important operational traits the agent must know.

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?

Though slightly long, every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, then the source-discovery mechanism, the amass caveat, and the alternative recommendation. It is dense but not verbose, with no filler.

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?

Covers tool behavior, performance characteristics (amass runtime), alternatives (bbot_scan), and parameter rationale. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-format details is acceptable. The description is complete for an enumeration tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It fully explains include_amass (default off, why, when to enable) and thorough (adds slower sources like theHarvester and amass with more providers). target is self-evident from the tool name and description. This compensates well for the schema 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?

States the exact operation: 'Enumerate subdomains from every installed passive source and merge them.' It names specific tools (subfinder, assetfinder, findomain, amass, theHarvester) and clearly distinguishes itself from bbot_scan, which is called out as a more comprehensive alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

Explicitly recommends using bbot_scan when available ('Prefer bbot_scan when BBOT is available'). It also provides conditions for enabling include_amass (only when amass has datasource credentials) and thorough (adds slower sources). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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