faf_chat

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond stating it involves asking questions and building context. It does not explain what 'generation' entails, such as whether it produces output or affects state.

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 short and uses emojis, but it is not optimally clear. It front-loads the purpose but includes jargon ('project.faf') and lacks structure, making it less helpful.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should fully explain how to use it. It mentions asking 6W questions but does not specify what 'project.faf' is, how responses are returned, or how it integrates with other 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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, but since there are none, it meets the baseline. It does not clarify how the AI should pass the '6W questions' to the tool.

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 the tool is for 'Natural language project.faf generation' and asking 6W questions, which gives a general idea of being a chat interface. However, 'project.faf generation' is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like faf_context or faf_guide.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the many other faf_* tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints.

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