full_recon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'wave-based' execution and 'extract signals' but lacks details on whether changes are made (destructive), rate limits, or error behavior. The transparency is insufficient for a complex orchestration 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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the main action. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from breaking down the three stages for clarity.

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 complexity (orchestrating multiple sub-tools), the description is minimal. It does not cover prerequisites, output shape (though an output schema exists), or error conditions. For a complex tool, this is adequate but not 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 a simple string with no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints, failing to add value beyond the bare schema definition.

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 tool's purpose: executing all registered reconnaissance tools in waves, extracting security signals, and building a threat analysis payload. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing itself from sibling tools which are individual reconnaissance operations.

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 this is a meta-tool for running all reconnaissance together, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus individual tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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