faf_auto

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

The description discloses that it executes multiple steps sequentially, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail side effects, error handling, or whether files are overwritten (beyond the force parameter). Annotations provide minimal behavioral info, so the description adds moderate value.

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, short sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. No extraneous words, and front-loaded with the action.

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?

Despite being a compound tool, the description does not mention output, return values, or prerequisites (e.g., session initialization). With no output schema, this leaves gaps for the 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no further meaning beyond the schema for path and force. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it runs the full FAF pipeline in one step, listing the sub-steps (init, sync, formats, bi-sync, score). This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are individual steps.

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 description implies use when wanting a complete pipeline, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus running individual steps (e.g., faf_init, faf_sync). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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