recon.full

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the workflow sequence (subfinder -> httpx -> amass) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like execution time, resource requirements, output format, error handling, or what 'full reconnaissance' actually produces. For a tool that likely performs network scanning, this is a substantial transparency gap.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words. Every element (workflow nature, tool sequence) earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs a multi-step reconnaissance workflow, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what results to expect, how the tools interact, error conditions, or practical considerations for use. For a security reconnaissance tool, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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% with one parameter (domain) clearly documented. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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's purpose: 'Run full reconnaissance workflow' with specific tools listed (subfinder, httpx, amass). It distinguishes from siblings like recon.subfinder, recon.httpx, and recon.amass by indicating this is a composite workflow rather than individual tools. However, it doesn't specify what 'full reconnaissance' entails beyond tool names.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this workflow is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from running the individual tools separately. With siblings like recon.subfinder, recon.httpx, and recon.amass available, this gap is significant.

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