fofa_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe, so the description does not need to restate those. It does add value by defining the scope of the read (local export, agent, or scan jobs), but it does not disclose any further behavior such as polling semantics, error cases, or what state fields are returned.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets to the point with no filler. It is concise and easy to read, though the compound object 'local export, agent or scan job state' could have been phrased slightly more cleanly.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is reasonably sufficient for a simple status tool. However, it omits guidance on where the job_id comes from (e.g., returned by fofa_export or fofa_agent_run) and does not clarify what 'local' means, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 must compensate by explaining the job_id parameter. It does not. 'Read local export, agent or scan job state' implies job_id identifies one of these job types, but the format, source, or how to obtain a valid job_id is left ambiguous.

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 a read operation on a specific resource: 'local export, agent or scan job state.' It is distinguishable from siblings like fofa_export and fofa_agent_run, which are likely job-creating operations, by its 'Read' verb. However, the phrase is a bit packed and does not explicitly demarcate itself from other status-like tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. One could infer it is for checking the status of jobs started by fofa_export or fofa_agent_run, but the description never states this explicitly or names any exclusions or alternatives.

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