Takeover Detect

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool is aggressive, requires human approval, uses specific tools (subzy and dnsReaper), and outputs only candidates, never findings. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical aggressive/human-approval warning, followed by a clear purpose statement and output clarification. Every word earns its place 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?

The description covers the core action, the output nature (candidate list), and the necessary next step (takeover_verify), along with the approval requirement. The output schema presumably documents the return format. However, the target parameter is left undefined, which is a notable gap for a one-parameter 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 a single parameter 'target' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description does not mention 'target' at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what format or value to provide (host, domain, IP, file path). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Screen hosts for takeover candidates with subzy and dnsReaper.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like takeover_verify and takeover_confirm by explicitly noting that output is a candidate list, never findings, and by directing verification to a specific sibling.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: as an aggressive screening step that requires human approval. It explicitly instructs to run takeover_verify on each hit before treating results as real, giving a concrete follow-up action. It does not list alternative screening tools but the workflow is unambiguous.

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