run_surface_recon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose meaningful behavior (fan-out to four external recon sources, automatic noise filtering, and creation of tagged entry points). It omits equally important traits: runtime/latency of external lookups, rate limits, whether results are persisted or overwritten, and permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the source list front-loaded, which is structurally sound. But the character-encoding corruption and vague trailing clause ('gắn cả các Entry Points khả nghi và Chất Chặn 2') make the second half low-information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with only two parameters the surface is small. Still, for a tool that triggers external network scans and produces entry-point records, the description says nothing about scope, side effects, or how to choose inputs.

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 — and it does not. Neither program_id nor root_domain is mentioned, nor that both are optional with defaults (including a surprising enum containing an empty string). The agent gets no hint that root_domain bounds the scan scope.

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 text does name a concrete activity — multi-source attack-surface reconnaissance via crt.sh, subfinder, dnsrecon and httpx — plus a post-processing step that tags entry points. However, the mojibake encoding and unexplained internal jargon ('Chất Chặn 2') make it hard to read, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like run_pentest_pipeline or triage_surface_entry_points.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the pipeline or triage sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration stage that feeds triage_surface_entry_points.

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