recon_subdomains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Get subdomains discovered' – it doesn't clarify whether this is passive (e.g., reading existing results) or active (triggering a scan), whether it has rate limits, caching, or what it does with the domain. For a recon tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, perfectly 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?

For a simple read-only recon tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient. However, it doesn't clarify any behavioral aspects like whether this performs active discovery or just retrieves cached results. Given no annotations, it could use a bit more context, but given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 schema already documents the single 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds nothing extra. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 subdomains discovered for a target domain.' It specifies the resource (subdomains) and the object (target domain), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like recon_endpoints or recon_params by focusing specifically on subdomains.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling recon tools (recon_endpoints, recon_params, recon_domain_summary), the description does not mention when to prefer this over others or any exclusions. Implicitly, it's for subdomain enumeration, but that's not explicit.

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