browser_passive_recon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It only states 'passive', which implies non-intrusiveness but does not disclose what data is collected, whether network requests are made, or any side effects. The slot parameter's suggestion to use a Tor-routed slot is an implicit safety cue but is not elaborated.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but slightly under-specified for a complex security tool, making it not quite a 5.

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 passive reconnaissance tool, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool outputs, what type of reconnaissance is performed, or any limitations or setup requirements. Even though an output schema exists, the description should provide more context to guide selection and use.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain 'domain' and 'slot' (including the recommendation for a Tor-routed slot). The description adds no new parameter-level information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run passive reconnaissance against a domain' uses a specific verb and resource, and the term 'passive' helps distinguish it from more active or specific browser tools. However, it lacks detail on what reconnaissance entails, so it does not fully differentiate from sibling tools like browser_network_requests.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or what prerequisites exist. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name alone.

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