faf_context

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, implying the tool is read-only, but the description claims it can 'set' the path, which is a mutation. This contradiction undermines transparency, as the agent cannot determine the true nature of the operation. The description does not clarify permissions or side effects beyond the contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a clear usage instruction. No unnecessary words or redundant 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, usage, and what it returns, which is sufficient for a simple setup tool with an output schema. However, the contradiction slightly reduces completeness as the agent cannot fully trust the behavioral description.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that if path is omitted, the tool shows the current context, which clarifies the optional parameter's behavior beyond the schema description.

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 sets or shows the active project path, and explains that subsequent faf_ calls resolve against this path. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are action-oriented rather than configuration-oriented.

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 explicitly says to call this once at the start of a session so other tools target the right project, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative approaches, though this is less critical given the tool's setup role.

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