recon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'read-only' nature and specifies the types of checks performed, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not explain whether the tool makes active network requests, potential side effects, rate limits, or how results are structured, which would be valuable for a recon 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read-only recon of a web target') and then lists the specific checks in a compact, comma-separated list. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is reasonably complex (covers many areas), but the description lists all major categories of checks. An output schema is present, so return values need not be described. The description could benefit from mentioning whether the recon is purely passive and any prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to grasp the tool's scope.

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 refers to 'a web target,' which implies the required 'url' parameter, and the context is clear given the tool's purpose. However, it does not specify URL format (e.g., https:// required), default behavior, or any additional nuance, so the description only partially compensates.

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 performs 'read-only recon of a web target' and enumerates specific checks (tech stack, headers, forms, script bundles, services, security headers, exposed files). This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like http_get or hunt, which target specific HTTP operations.

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 use for initial reconnaissance by calling it 'read-only recon' and listing the scope of checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives are referenced, despite many sibling tools existing.

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