faf_go

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive; description adds that it returns questions and applies answers, implying state changes. However, it does not detail what 'applies' entails (e.g., updates to project files or database) or any side effects.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 explains the basic workflow but does not clarify the multi-step nature (first call without answers to get questions, then with answers) or define 'Gold Code (100%)'. For a tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for 'path' and 'answers'. The tool description adds framing but no new semantics beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions.

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 it is a 'Guided interview to Gold Code (100%)' that returns questions for missing fields and applies answers. This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like faf_setup or faf_guide.

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 implies usage as a guided setup process but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites. No 'when not to use' or context is provided.

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