faf_context

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

The description claims the tool can 'set' the project path, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating it should be read-only. This is a direct contradiction. The description also does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, and the contradiction undermines 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core action and include a valuable follow-up. Every word serves a purpose, with no unnecessary elaboration. The emojis are decorative but do not detract from clarity.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. The parameter description within the schema explains the viewing behavior. However, the contradiction between 'set' and readOnlyHint creates confusion, and there is no mention of the return format when viewing. This leaves some gaps for an 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?

While the input schema already covers the parameter description (100% coverage), the tool description adds the crucial insight that the path is 'remembered for subsequent faf_ calls,' which enriches understanding beyond the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline 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's purpose: 'Set or view active project context.' It identifies the specific verb ('set or view') and resource ('project context'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on context management. The additional note that the path is remembered for subsequent calls adds specificity.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to set or view the active project context. It implies its role as a context setter/viewer for subsequent faf_ calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools among the many siblings.

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