recon.dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it performs recursive lookups, handles errors, returns multiple records, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential operational implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 resolution with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context, leaving the agent to infer operational aspects from the schema alone.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain domain format constraints or recordType usage nuances), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'resolve' and resource 'DNS records for a domain or subdomain', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recon.amass' or 'recon.subfinder' which might also perform DNS-related reconnaissance, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (e.g., recon.amass, recon.subfinder) that might handle DNS resolution or broader reconnaissance, but the description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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