amass_enum

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: active mode 'sends DNS queries directly to target's nameservers' and the allowed_hosts requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond a generic enumeration tool, though it could mention more (e.g., rate limits, resource usage).

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose sentence immediately conveys what the tool does. It is succinct without sacrificing essential details.

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 tool's purpose, parameters, return values, mode differences, and a critical prerequisite. Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: domain with example, mode with definitions, timeout with units and default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Enumerate subdomains and map attack surface using Amass.' It identifies the specific resource (subdomains) and implies a broader scope (attack surface). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like subfinder_enum or dns_enumerate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 each mode: passive (no direct interaction) vs active (DNS brute-force + zone walk). It also notes a prerequisite (allowed_hosts). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, which would be a 5.

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