recon_ips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs DNS lookups, passive recon, or returns specific IP types (IPv4/IPv6), nor any potential side effects. The description is minimal and offers no additional context beyond the literal action.

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, clear sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose immediately without wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., domain must be already known), expected output format beyond what the schema might provide, or any dependencies on prior recon steps. For a simple lookup, this is borderline acceptable but could be more complete.

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 only parameter (domain) is fully described in the input schema with an example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (get), the resource (IP addresses), and the context (associated with a target domain). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like recon_subdomains (which likely retrieves subdomains) and recon_endpoints (which likely retrieves endpoints).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'get IP addresses,' which implies usage but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., recon_domain_summary might also provide IPs). The agent has no basis to choose this over other recon tools.

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