recon_trigger

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool subprocess-wraps reconftw.sh and writes into the Recon/<domain>/ layout. However, it does not cover broader behavioral context such as whether the scan is long-running, whether it can be aborted, what side effects/failures may occur, or how results are actually returned beyond writing files.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two sentences that clarify the subprocess wrapper and output-layout side effect. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 6-parameter tool with rich schema coverage and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core workflow and downstream integration. It could add explicit guidance on long-running/high-impact modes or error handling, but the existing combination of description and schema is sufficient for selection and basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already provides detailed descriptions for mode, domain, dry_run, timeout, and scope parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the 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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a reconFTW scan against a domain.' It clearly identifies the tool as the scan trigger and distinguishes it from sibling read/query tools by explaining it subprocess-wraps reconftw.sh and writes to Recon/<domain>/ layout.

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 clear usage context: run it to produce fresh reconFTW output for recon_bridge-related tools to query immediately afterward. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this when you need to generate new findings, not when reading existing results,' but the workflow is clear.

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