dnsrecon_scan

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 covers the expected output (DNS records, zone transfer results, raw output), a failure mode (axfr may fail), and a prerequisite (allowed_hosts). It does not disclose timing or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only recon tool this is solid coverage.

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 clear sections (capabilities, Args, Returns, Note) and is appropriately sized. Each section earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description provides complete operational guidance: it names the underlying tool, lists all supported scan modes, documents every parameter, and includes prerequisites plus failure caveats. With an output schema present to handle detailed return structure, nothing essential is missing.

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%, yet the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. Most valuably, it enumerates every scan_type value (std, brt, axfr, rvl, goo) with a short explanation, which the schema itself lacks entirely.

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 opens with 'Perform DNS reconnaissance using DNSRecon' and enumerates supported capabilities (zone transfers, brute-force, PTR lookups, standard record enumeration). It is specific about the tool and scope but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling DNS tools like subfinder_enum or dns_enumerate.

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 provides clear operational context: the target must be in tengu.toml [targets].allowed_hosts, and zone transfer (axfr) may fail if nameservers are properly configured. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling DNS enumeration tools or what alternatives exist, so it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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