Recon Review

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

Beyond the readOnly/not-destructive annotations, the description adds 'Zero traffic', which is a valuable behavioral detail. It also states that it reads the asset store, making side effects clear and minimal.

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?

Two crisp, focused sentences. It uses backticks for code identifiers and provides all essential information without any fluff.

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 simple input and output, the description fully covers what it does, what it reads, what it returns, and how to chain it with subsequent tools. No missing information that would prevent correct usage.

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 only parameter, limit, is explained in the description as the number of top hosts to return. The schema itself lacks a description (0% coverage), but the prose compensates. It is enough for an agent to correctly use it, though no bounds or edge cases are mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rank live hosts by how worth they are of manual testing.' It clearly defines the input (asset store) and output (top hosts with scores and reasons), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the hand-off for auth testing.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance by naming the follow-up tools (auth_surface, auth_crawl/authz_compare) and the intended flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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