faf_formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'fill stack slots', which might imply a side effect (setting context), but it is not explained. It does not contradict annotations, but the behavioral information is incomplete.

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 with two short sentences. It front-loads the core action ('Discover all formats') and provides a numeric detail ('154+ validated types'). Every word contributes to the description without fluff.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has only two optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose. The mention of '154+ validated types' gives a hint about output. However, the phrase 'fill stack slots' is left unexplained, which could be important context. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read-only list tool.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description does not add further meaning; it only mentions 'Project path. Sets session context' and 'Return results as JSON' from the schema. No additional context or examples are provided, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 uses the verb 'Discover' and specifies the resource 'all formats in the project (154+ validated types)', which is specific. However, 'fill stack slots' is ambiguous and does not clearly indicate what the tool does beyond discovery. It distinguishes from siblings like faf_list (likely general listing) by focusing on formats, but the overall purpose is reasonably clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., faf_list, faf_agents, faf_about). It does not mention prerequisites, context needs, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and minimal description, which is inadequate.

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