recon-fuzz-knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns top 10 matches, which is useful context about result limiting. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, search algorithm characteristics, or what happens with empty/no results.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the search scope and result limitation. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, and the most important information (what's searched and result count) is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about scope and result limitation. However, given the multiple sibling search tools and lack of annotations, it should ideally clarify differentiation from alternatives and mention more behavioral aspects to be truly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'query' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 tool searches across getrecon.xyz content types (blog posts, glossary, comparisons, tools) and returns top 10 matches. It specifies both the action (search) and resource scope (multiple content types), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_all, search_book, search_glossary, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the multiple sibling search tools (search_all, search_book, search_glossary, search_substack). It doesn't indicate whether this is a general search across all content types or if there are specific scenarios where it's preferred over the more specific search tools.

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