recon-fuzz-knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the scope of content searched, the return format ('top 15 matches with source labels'), and the specific domains covered. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality in the first clause, followed by specific domain details and return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about scope, sources, and results without any wasted words or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter search across multiple domains) and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It clearly explains what content is searched, what domains are included, and what the return format looks like. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates well by specifying the return format details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with the single 'query' parameter well-documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 specific action ('Search across ALL Recon content') and identifies the exact resources covered (blog, glossary, comparisons, tools, chapters, concepts, FAQs, newsletter posts). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by emphasizing the comprehensive 'ALL' scope versus the more targeted sibling tools like search_book or search_substack.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for searching across all Recon content sources. It implicitly suggests alternatives by naming specific sibling tools (e.g., search_book, search_substack) that would be more appropriate for targeted searches within single domains, though it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' this tool.

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