subfinder

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'passive', implying non-intrusiveness, but fails to disclose if API keys are needed, what sources are queried, whether it makes network calls, or any safety considerations. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs network requests.

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 extremely concise (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical information that would make it useful. Every word should earn its place, but here the two additional words beyond the tool name add minimal insight.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and 29 sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address return values, prerequisites (e.g., a valid session), or how it integrates with other tools. A user would have no sense of what to expect after invocation.

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 only 25% (only dry_run has a description). The main description does not explain the 'domain', 'consent', or 'session_id' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the sparse schema, leaving users unsure about parameter roles.

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 'Passive subdomain enumeration', which specifies the verb (enumeration), resource (subdomains), and methodology (passive). This distinguishes it from active enumeration siblings like gobuster and ffuf. However, it lacks detail on what passive enumeration entails, so it's clear but not highly specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like amass or dnsrecon. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The description gives no context for selecting this tool among the extensive sibling list.

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