fofa_agent_run

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important behavioral boundary 'never scan,' which is not fully implied by readOnlyHint, and hints at the bundled data inputs. It doesn't add details like rate limits or external side effects, but those are largely covered by annotations.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. Key action, scope, and the critical 'never scan' boundary are all included immediately and efficiently.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety, idempotency, and return structure, so this is not a bare tool. However, the required 'intent' parameter is left underspecified, and the description does not explain how the bundled data is used or what kind of planning output to expect. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps around invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not explain what 'intent' should contain or how max_pages and max_records influence planning. The phrase 'planning with bundled...' implies intent is the user objective, but this is not explicit enough to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Run planning') and a resource scope ('bundled app= fingerprints and evidence-labelled website candidates'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from scanning tools with 'never scan,' which differentiates it from siblings like nuclei_execute and fofa_search.

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 clearly signals this tool is for planning rather than scanning, giving an explicit exclusion. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify exact conditions for when to choose this over siblings like nuclei_plan or fofa_search.

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