recon_tls_sans

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 states the tool is 'Read-only' (indicating non-destructive operation) and performs a 'TLS handshake' (implying network interaction), which covers key behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is efficient with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 (TLS analysis with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, returned data, and behavioral traits ('Read-only TLS handshake'), but could improve by detailing output format or error cases. It adequately compensates for the missing structured fields.

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 in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid targets beyond the schema's 'example.com or 1.2.3.4:443'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Extract Subject Alternative Names from the TLS certificate') and resource (TLS certificate), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'recon_dns' or 'recon_quick' by focusing on TLS certificate analysis. It explicitly lists the returned data fields (common_name, subject_alternative_names, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and 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?

The description implies usage for TLS certificate analysis (e.g., 'TLS handshake'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recon_dns' or 'pcap_tls_analysis'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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