recon_list_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool inspects the reconFTW output root on disk and returns only domain names with a corresponding directory. This implies a read-only, local filesystem operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for a simple list 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 two short sentences that each add value: the first states the primary action and scope, the second clarifies the exact condition for inclusion. There is no redundancy, filler, or irrelevant detail.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema available. The description fully explains what is listed and under what filesystem condition. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke or interpret the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior instead of inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('all domains with reconFTW output data on disk'). It also explains the underlying criterion (existence of a Recon/<domain>/ directory), which distinguishes it from sibling recon tools that enumerate subdomains, web targets, or summaries.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs domain names that already have reconFTW output on disk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'on disk' qualifier makes the intended use case unambiguous.

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