faf_friday

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'run fuzzy-matching helpers' – ambiguous whether it executes code or just analyzes. No mention of return value or side effects beyond annotation hints.

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?

One sentence with 8 words, front-loaded with verb 'Detect'. No redundancy. However, it may be under-specified.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how the agent can use the results. For a tool named 'faf_friday', the description lacks context.

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%: the single optional parameter 'test' has a description explaining it tests fuzzy matching with typos. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.

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 states 'Detect the FAF Chrome extension and run fuzzy-matching helpers' – clear verb+resource but vague on what the tool actually does (detect? return Boolean? run helpers?). Among 32 sibling tools, it does not differentiate its purpose well.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations. The description offers no context for when faf_friday is appropriate over other fuzzy-matching or detection tools like faf_check or faf_enhance.

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