fofa_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does add real context: it operates on a single host rather than in bulk. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the cost of calling it, and the warning against per-result calls implies a constraint without explaining it.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the scoping rule. No filler or redundancy; every phrase 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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the usage guidance is strong. The gap is parameter documentation: three of four params (detail, task_id, request_id) have zero coverage, leaving the agent guessing at invocation semantics.

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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains only 'host' implicitly via 'one selected IP or hostname'. The meaning of 'detail', 'task_id', and 'request_id' is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get FOFA host aggregation') scoped to 'one selected IP or hostname', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the search family by rejecting bulk use. Clear enough to separate from fofa_search siblings, though it doesn't differentiate from the less-related fofa_stats.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('after search identifies a priority asset') and when not to ('not a bulk replacement for search', 'should not be called for every result by default'). It names the alternative and the selecting condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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