recon_dns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses tool-specific constraints and the single/bulk distinction, but does not explicitly state that lookups are read-only, describe output behavior, or mention safety/rate-limit characteristics. It adds some behavioral context but not rich enough for full transparency.

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 tight and structured with Purpose/Constraints/Example, front-loading the core action. The trailing '…' suggests possible truncation, but for a 9-param tool, the description remains economical. Not a 5 because information is telegraphic.

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?

For a two-mode tool with 9 parameters, it covers the purpose and param split, and an output schema exists so return values are handled. However, it lacks operational details like how to specify multiple domains for bulk resolution and what constitutes valid extra_args/server input, so an agent might not correctly invoke dnsx mode.

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 description must compensate. It names all parameters in the constraints and provides an example, mapping params to the selected tool. Yet it doesn't define parameter formats or expected values (e.g., server syntax, extra_args conventions, silent meaning), leaving semantic gaps.

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?

Description opens with 'Run DNS lookups with tool=dig|dnsx' – a specific verb and resource, and further differentiates single-record queries vs bulk resolution. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recon_whois and recon_amass by naming the DNS-lookup scope.

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?

It provides explicit internal usage guidance: 'dig uses target, record_type, server, short, axfr, and extra_args' and 'dnsx uses domains or target and silent/extra_args', plus an example invocation. However, it does not mention when to choose recon_dns over sibling recon tools or list exclusions, so it falls short of 5.

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