websex_recon_ng

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that argv tokens are passed directly and 'shell parsing is never used' (relevant injection/safety context) and that execution is scoped to the engagement namespace. It omits permissions, timeouts, side effects of modules that write artifacts, and failure behavior for a command-execution tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the what and the execution model, then the scoping rule. Zero filler; each sentence carries actionable content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a shell-adjacent execution tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage across four parameters, the description should at least note timeout/error behavior and what 'stdin' is for. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 compensate. It clarifies that 'arguments' are argv tokens and that 'working_directory' should be relative within the engagement namespace, which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. It says nothing about 'stdin' or how 'engagement_id' is validated/used, leaving one of four params fully undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run recon ng from the WebSex enumeration toolkit'), so an agent knows exactly which binary is invoked. However, it offers no differentiation from the many overlapping recon siblings (theharvester, spiderfoot, amass, subfinder, fierce), so the agent cannot tell when recon-ng is the right choice over them.

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 covers operating context ('runs from the selected engagement namespace', 'use relative paths for engagement artifacts') but says nothing about when to prefer recon-ng over the other enumeration siblings or what prerequisites (workspace setup, module install) are needed. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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