pentest_recon_dns

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: the operation is passive and the target must be in scope. It says nothing about resolver behavior, what happens on an out-of-scope or unresolvable domain, error handling, or result shape, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and record types, with the scope/passive qualifier trailing. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the enumerated record types effectively communicate what comes back, so return values are adequately implied. Missing are out-of-scope behavior, resolver/error semantics, and accepted input formats, leaving it only adequately 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% with only a bare 'Domain' title, so the schema contributes nothing beyond a string type. The description adds the constraint that the domain must be in scope, which is useful meaning, but does not clarify accepted formats (bare apex vs subdomain vs URL) or wildcard handling.

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 gives a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('DNS records') and enumerates the record types (A/AAAA/MX/NS/TXT/CNAME), which clearly separates it from enumeration siblings like pentest_recon_subdomains or pentest_recon_whois. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'for an in-scope domain' implies this belongs in the scoped recon phase, and 'Passive' hints at the engagement stage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to overlapping sibling tools such as pentest_recon_subdomains or pentest_scope_check. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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