recon

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It outlines the types of analysis performed and depth options, but lacks details on rate limits, resource intensity, data persistence, or error handling. The description adds moderate value but could be more explicit about potential impacts.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, depth guidance, and depth details. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (multiple techniques), the description covers the 'what' but omits the 'what you get back' since no output schema exists. It does not mention return structure or result format, which is a notable gap for an AI agent to understand the tool's output.

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 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description enriches the 'depth' parameter by detailing technique counts per enum value, providing clear decision-making context beyond the schema. For 'url', it adds an example format, reinforcing usage.

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 performs full target reconnaissance, listing specific techniques (HTTP headers, TLS, DNS, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on single aspects. The verb 'recon' is well-explained.

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 explains when to use different depth levels (quick, standard, deep) with technique counts, providing clear guidance on scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for when to use this combined tool versus individual scans, leaving a slight gap.

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