subdomain_enum_passive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is non-intrusive and uses CT logs. It could mention limitations (e.g., only finds subdomains with certificates), but the provided details are sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 three lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a behavioral note and an example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, method, and usage. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of subdomains), which would be helpful for completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description provides an example call but no additional semantic detail about the 'domain' parameter format or constraints. The example helps, but schema coverage is low, and the description does not fully compensate.

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 it performs 'passive subdomain enumeration using Certificate Transparency logs', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'subdomain_enum_active' by emphasizing passivity and non-intrusiveness.

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 implies usage for reconnaissance without generating logs on target servers, contrasting with active enumeration. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like 'subdomain_enum_active'.

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