fofa_render_report

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it does not call FofaMap's model, and an omitted report_language falls back to the saved interface language. However, with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, it does not explain what side effect or external interaction occurs, nor what gets persisted or 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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficiently written, though its extreme brevity leaves little structural guidance for such a large parameter surface.

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 17-parameter tool with nested HostQuery objects, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover some safety signals, but the description does not give enough information for an agent to understand the inputs or invocation context 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% across 17 parameters, and the description only clarifies the optional report_language fallback. Required fields such as intent and summary, and major inputs such as assets, queries, fields, host_model, and scan_selection, are left completely unexplained.

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 and resource: render host-agent text. It also distinguishes this path from model-driven execution by saying it works without calling FofaMap's model, which helps separate it from siblings such as fofa_agent_run.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer that this is the non-model rendering path, but the description does not say when to prefer it over fofa_agent_run, fofa_export, or other report-related tools.

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