dns_recon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions zone transfer attempts, scan type options, and the requirement for authorization. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, potential network impact, or error behavior, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 structured with metadata fields and a docstring, providing all essential info. Some redundancy exists between USECASE and the main description, but it is well-organized and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers scope, parameters, return values, prerequisites, and related tools. It lacks details on edge cases or when to choose this over related tools, but is otherwise 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'domain' must be in scope, and 'scan_type' lists valid values (std, axfr, brt, srv). The example invocation further clarifies parameter 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's purpose: 'Enumerate DNS records for an in-scope domain (dnsrecon)' and expands on the record types. It is distinct from sibling tools like subdomain_enum and whois_lookup, with a specific verb and resource.

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 clear usage context, including prerequisites ('domain authorized and in scope') and steps ('Choose scan_type, Call'). It lists related tools for context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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