faf_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by specifying the content domains (conventions, paths, UX patterns), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with 'FAF MCP usage guide', and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and scope. However, it could be slightly improved by explicitly stating when to use this tool (e.g., 'Use this tool to understand conventions before other faf tools').

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies as no parameter information is missing.

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 usage guide covering three specific areas: Projects convention, path resolution, and UX patterns. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform actions (e.g., faf_auto, faf_chat) by explicitly labeling it as a 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 the tool should be used for learning conventions and patterns, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools. Among ~30 sibling tools, it is the only guide-like tool, so the context is somewhat clear, but no direct when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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