faf_context

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

The description claims the tool can 'set' the active project path, which is a mutation operation. However, the annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating no mutation occurs. This is a direct contradiction, severely undermining transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

While the description mentions set/view and persistence, the contradiction with annotations regarding mutation indicates a significant gap. The output schema exists but is not referenced; however, the main issue is the lack of alignment between description and annotations, making the description incomplete for reliable use.

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 already defines the 'path' parameter with description 'Set active project path. If omitted, shows current context.' The tool description adds that the path is remembered for subsequent calls, providing some additional behavioral context. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 views the active project context, and specifies that the path is remembered for subsequent faf_ calls. It is specific with verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to have overlapping functionality.

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 that this tool should be used to set context before using other faf_ tools, or to view current context. It provides clear context but does not give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives.

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