recon_quick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it is 'read-only', sends '~10 GET requests', and returns specific data fields (robots_txt, security_txt, etc.). This covers safety (read-only), network impact (request count), and output structure, though it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits.

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 two sentences: the tool's purpose and scope, its read-only nature and request count, and the return values. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (reconnaissance with multiple checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the return data fields and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on error responses or exact request patterns, leaving minor gaps for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 100% for the single parameter 'target', which is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 performs 'quick reconnaissance' with specific actions: checking robots.txt, security.txt, common directories, and response headers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'recon_directory_bruteforce' by emphasizing a quick, broad scan rather than intensive directory enumeration.

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 for initial reconnaissance with 'quick' and lists specific checks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recon_dns' or 'recon_vhost'. It provides clear context for initial scanning but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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