fofa_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the check is local-only, makes no remote call, and does not consume FOFA quota — the key behavioral traits for a health check. It stops short of mentioning configuration prerequisites (e.g., missing API keys) or error semantics, which would be the remaining behavioral 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core distinguishing constraint ('without making a remote FOFA request') front-loaded. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, timing, and side effects adequately for a single-parameter diagnostic tool. The only omission is any note about configuration/auth prerequisites or what a failing health check implies.

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?

There is one optional parameter (request_id) with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. It is a trivial, optional tracing field with a default, so the practical impact is low, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('check local configuration') and immediately scopes it with 'without making a remote FOFA request,' which cleanly separates it from the remote-call siblings (fofa_search, fofa_host, fofa_stats). An agent can distinguish this diagnostic tool from all siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('at startup or for installation/configuration diagnosis'), which is stronger than implied guidance. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'no remote request' clause effectively frames the boundary against the search tools.

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