recon_params

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 disclosure. It only states the core function and does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'discovered' entails. The presence of an output schema helps but does not cover behavioral traits.

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, highly efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose. No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.

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, output schema present) and high schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not provide any context about when this is useful or what 'discovered' implies, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent navigating many sibling tools.

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 100% and the 'domain' parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation 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') and resource ('discovered query parameters') scoped to a 'target domain'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling recon tools like recon_endpoints or recon_ips, which focus on other aspects of recon.

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 usage when query parameters are needed for a domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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