fofa_syntax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Return' wording aligns with that. It adds the context that the content comes from the official API appendix, but no deeper behavioral details such as caching, rate limits, or response characteristics are disclosed.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and clearly states the output and source. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly communicates what the agent will receive. A minor gap is the lack of explicit relationship to sibling syntax-related tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. With schema coverage at 100% and no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies and the description needs to add nothing further about parameters.

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 ('Return') and names the resource ('FOFA query operators and syntax fields') with its source ('API appendix'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fofa_fields or fofa_rules.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to get FOFA syntax and operators. However, it does not state when to prefer this over related tools or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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