recon_domain_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks any mention of side effects (e.g., does it trigger new recon?), data freshness, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but this is not explicit and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 sentence that is direct and free of any fluff. It front-loads the purpose without wasting words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (which likely explains the summary structure) and full parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete for a summary tool. It lacks explicit mention of what data is included, but this is likely covered by the output schema. The description is sufficient but could be enhanced by noting whether the summary is real-time or cached.

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?

The input schema fully describes the 'domain' parameter with a clear example and type. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'summary of all recon data' and scopes it to a 'domain'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recon_subdomains or recon_endpoints, which are more focused. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for a high-level overview of recon data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over other recon tools or mention any exclusions. It could benefit from saying 'use this for an overview before drilling into specific recon areas' but the intent is inferable.

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