recon_target

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses non-intrusive, safe nature and that it chains other tools. However, it does not detail rate limits, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second elaborates without redundancy.

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?

Description covers the key actions (subdomain enumeration, DNS, TLS, HTTP probe, header grade, tech fingerprint) adequately for a composite tool, though it lacks details on output format or error behavior. No output schema present.

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 0%. Description mentions 'domain' but does not explain the 'include_subdomains' parameter or provide additional detail beyond the schema, so it adds limited value for the boolean parameter.

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 explicitly states it performs 'one-shot passive+light recon' and lists specific tasks: subdomain enumeration, DNS, TLS, HTTP probe, header grade, and tech fingerprint. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being a composite of safe tools.

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?

Description recommends it as 'the first call against a new target' and states 'no intrusive scanning'. It implicitly differentiates from more specific or intrusive tools, but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives.

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