recon-fuzz-knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the result limit ('top 10 matches') and source ('book.getrecon.xyz'), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds behavioral context (result limit and source). No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 (search operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness. It covers what the tool searches and result limitations, but lacks details about return format, error cases, or how it differs from sibling search tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'query' is fully documented in the schema as 'The search query'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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: 'Search across Recon Book documentation (chapters, concepts, FAQs)' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Recon Book documentation'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_book_chapter' (retrieves specific chapter) and 'list_book_chapters' (lists chapters), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'search_all' or 'search_site'.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Returns top 10 matches' which implies a limitation, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_all' or 'search_site'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context is provided.

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