web_recon_infrastructure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the scan is passive or active, whether it touches the target in an intrusive way, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the result looks like; it only lists analysis categories.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed domain contributes to the tool's scope, and the target is stated immediately.

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 broad forensics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin about what an agent will get back, how deep or slow the scan may be, and any scope limitations. It names analysis areas but does not complete the operational picture.

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 single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example, so the description does not need to repeat its type or format. It also adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, making the high-coverage baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific action (performs deep forensics) and enumerates concrete resource areas: infrastructure, Edge/CDN, WAF, DNS, TLS, security headers, and frontend frameworks. That is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like web_decompile_bundles or web_inspect_pwa_cache, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'on any target website URL' and by the listed forensic domains, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or sibling routing guidance. An agent must infer that this is the broad infra reconnaissance option.

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