tools_amass

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

While the description notes that Amass uses 'open-source information gathering and active reconnaissance techniques' and has passive/active modes, it does not disclose potential impact (e.g., traffic generation, rate limiting, triggers). No annotations exist to fill this gap.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear Args section and examples. The initial sentence is slightly redundant with the following line, but overall well-structured and easy to parse.

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 input parameters adequately but omits output format or return value details despite an output schema being present. Given the complexity and many sibling tools, more context about what the tool produces would improve 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains all three parameters: domain (with example), mode (passive/active with default), and additional_args. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though additional_args could be elaborated.

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 is for 'advanced subdomain enumeration using OWASP Amass' and explains it performs network mapping and asset discovery. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tools_subfinder or tools_assetfinder.

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 example usage and parameter hints (passive vs active) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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