faf_formats

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

The description claims 'fills stack slots' and the path parameter sets session context, implying state changes, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, creating a contradiction. Behavioral traits like session context mutation are not disclosed upfront, and the description contradicts the safe read-only indication.

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 not concise; it includes emojis and the redundant 'TURBO-CAT' branding. Important information is not front-loaded, and the sentence structure is cluttered, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 lacks details about what formats are, how 'fills stack slots' works, and what the output format is (e.g., list of strings, objects). No output schema exists, so the description should provide more context, but it does not.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, resulting in baseline score.

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 identifies the tool's function as discovering formats in a project, with a verb 'Discovers' and resource 'formats'. The title in annotations confirms 'List Formats'. However, the phrase 'fills stack slots' is ambiguous and could be interpreted as a side effect, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like faf_list or faf_check. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use, leaving the agent without decision support.

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