fofa_export

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

The description surfaces key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the operation starts a job rather than returning data directly, and results arrive via MCP resources with status retrieval. It could further disclose cost/quota effects or how exactly to locate the artifact, but the core async artifact model is clear.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the essential job-start and resource-retrieval behavior is front-loaded. Every word contributes.

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?

For a tool with a large nested request schema, async job semantics, and numerous related siblings, a single sentence is not enough. It lacks guidance on when to choose export, how to monitor the job, and what the artifact/resources contain, despite the output schema existing.

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%, and the description does not clarify any request fields. The only semantic hint is 'bounded,' which loosely maps to max_pages/max_records/cost_budget, but the description does not explain the nested SearchRequest or the format/filename options.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Start a bounded export job,' and it adds that status/artifact retrieval happens through MCP resources. It is reasonably distinct from sibling search tools, though it never explicitly names what data is exported or contrasts with fofa_search/fofa_search_next.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies an async export flow, but it does not point to fofa_search for direct queries or fofa_job_status for polling, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name and schema.

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