Hunt Plan

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency by stating 'Sends no traffic' and explicitly describing that it reads the asset store and returns proposals/gaps, including edge-case behavior ('On a target where everything interesting sits behind a login, gaps will say so'). This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 well-organized, free of redundancy, and each sentence adds meaningful detail. It logically flows from purpose to behavior to parameters to output, making it easy to parse. No filler words or unnecessary technical jargon.

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 (parameters, output with proposals and gaps), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the output structure and the significance of 'gaps,' and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields. It lacks explicit prerequisites or error conditions but these are not critical for basic invocation. Overall, it is nearly 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?

The schema provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must explain parameters. It adequately describes 'focus' with examples ('authentication', 'idor', 'business logic') and its default behavior. However, 'limit' is completely omitted, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description only covers half of the parameters, failing to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Propose concrete tests based on what recon actually observed.' It specifies the resource read ('engagement's asset store') and the output type (testable propositions, proposals/gaps). This distinguishes it from execution or triage tools among siblings.

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 implies usage after recon by referencing observed data and mentions the optional 'focus' parameter to narrow scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative planning tools (e.g., taskgraph_next, research_guidance) or state concrete conditions for when to prefer this tool over others. The guidance is implicit but not fully explicit.

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