faf_auto

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

The description reveals return behavior (what was detected and updated score) and the 'no hardcoded defaults' principle. It implies a write operation via 'fill', but does not explicitly state side effects on existing files, though the force parameter partly addresses this. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with three clear sentences: action, return value, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary behavior and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return value, and usage. It also provides contextual differentiation from siblings, making it sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds context about scanning manifests, which aligns with the path parameter, but does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool scans manifests and fills project.faf stack slots from real dependencies, with specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes from sibling faf_go by focusing on technical context.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for the technical context; use faf_go for the human 6Ws it can't detect,' providing clear usage context and an alternative tool.

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