recon_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that the tool is read-only ('Read-only DNS queries'), which is crucial for safety. It also specifies the return structure ('Returns records object, axfr_result, and bind_version'), adding valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, packing essential information into three efficient sentences: the enumeration scope, return values, and safety note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 (DNS enumeration with multiple record types), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the return structure and read-only nature. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a security tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'target' parameter clearly documented as 'Target domain, e.g. example.com.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Full DNS enumeration') and lists the exact record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, AXFR, BIND version) being queried. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on DNS enumeration rather than other reconnaissance or attack techniques.

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 context through 'Full DNS enumeration' and 'Read-only DNS queries,' suggesting it's for information gathering rather than exploitation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recon_quick' or 'recon_vhost,' nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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