faf

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

Description implies mutation ('syncs everything', 'drives to 100%') but annotations set destructiveHint=false, a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the annotation conflict.

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?

Extremely short but not concise; hyperbolic phrasing ('the one command that does it all') wastes words without conveying actionable information.

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 many sibling tools and no output schema, the description fails to explain relationships, return values, or scope. It is insufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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?

Description completely ignores the optional 'path' parameter even though schema coverage is 100%. It adds no meaningful guidance on how or when to use the parameter.

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?

Description uses vague, hyperbolic claims ('scores your project, drives it to 100%, syncs everything') instead of a specific verb+resource. It does not distinguish from siblings like faf_score or faf_sync.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Claiming it does everything contradicts the existence of many specialized siblings, potentially misleading the agent.

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