faf_go

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

Discloses key behaviors: bootstrapping project.faf if missing, asking the 6Ws, returning a Table-of-8, and applying answers. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with create/write operations).

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?

Concise, front-loaded with a clear metaphor, and every sentence serves a purpose—no redundant or unclear phrasing.

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?

Covers the overall workflow and interaction pattern, though it does not detail return types (e.g., Table-of-8 structure). Acceptable given tool complexity and missing output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and description adds context beyond schema by explaining the flow (e.g., answers field applies keys like 'project.goal'). Adds moderate value.

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 role as a setup assistant ('the friendly front door'), describes the verb actions (asks, applies, bootstraps), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling faf_auto for the technical stack.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('from nothing to the 6Ws') and when not to ('use faf_auto for the technical stack on its own'), providing clear alternatives.

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