recon_report

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (no annotations exist): it runs checks concurrently, returns a single graded overview, caps the overall grade at F if a live takeover is found, and reports errors without breaking the rest. It also explains the grading model ('as weak as the weakest component'). This is rich behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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-structured with a clear summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. It front-loads the core purpose and scope. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place by explaining the grading model, the concurrency, and the error-handling behavior. The only minor inefficiency is the repetition of 'recon' and 'report' concepts, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 complexity (aggregating multiple recon checks) and the absence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the return dict contains, how grades are computed, and how errors are handled. It could add a note about rate limits or permission requirements, but for a read-only recon tool, the description covers the essential context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'domain' as 'The domain to assess, e.g. "example.com"' and 'timeout' as 'Per-connection network timeout in seconds.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't elaborate on timeout defaults or edge cases. The description also clarifies the return structure, which helps the agent understand what the parameters produce.

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: a one-shot security posture report for a domain. It names the specific verb ('runs', 'returns'), the resource ('domain'), and the scope (DNS/email, TLS, HTTP-header, web-stack, apex subdomain-takeover). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'Use this for a quick full picture; call the individual tools for raw detail.'

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('for a quick full picture') and when not to ('call the individual tools for raw detail'). It also names the sibling tools implicitly by category (DNS/email, TLS, HTTP-header, tech_detect, subdomain_takeover), which helps the agent choose between this aggregate tool and the individual ones.

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