recon.httpx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool runs httpx to check host liveness and get status codes, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as execution time, output format, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and output details, which are crucial for a tool that performs network reconnaissance. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.

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 all parameters (input, statusCode, title). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('run httpx') and resource ('hosts'), explaining it checks which hosts are live and gets status codes. It distinguishes from some siblings like recon.dns or recon.subfinder by focusing on host liveness and status codes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all recon tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions what the tool does but doesn't indicate scenarios for its use, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like recon.full or other security testing tools.

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