pentest_attack_surface

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden; it does disclose one important trait, that active steps are gated on engagement authorization. It does not say which of the listed modules are active vs passive, what happens when the engagement forbids active scanning but include_active is true, or whether partial results are returned when steps are skipped.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the module list; no filler. The comma-separated list is slightly cryptic ("takeover", "cloud assets") but keeps the definition compact.

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 composite recon tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it lists data sources but not the shape or structure of the aggregated result, nor how per-module failures or skipped active steps are represented. The interaction between the two parameters is left entirely unstated.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning and it adds little. "domain" is self-evident, but "include_active" is never named or explained — the active-scanning sentence implies a gate but doesn't clarify whether that flag overrides or is overridden by the engagement scope, or what the default behavior yields.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Map the external attack surface") and enumerates the covered modules: DNS, WHOIS, certificate transparency, Wayback, takeover, cloud assets. The purpose is unambiguous, but the description never says this is an umbrella/composite tool that overlaps pentest_recon_dns, pentest_recon_whois, pentest_osint_crtsh, pentest_osint_wayback, pentest_osint_takeover and pentest_osint_cloud_assets, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 only guidance is a behavioral constraint ("Active steps run only when the engagement allows active scanning"), not a when-to-use rule. It does not say whether to call this instead of the individual recon/osint siblings, nor when a narrower tool is preferable.

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