faf_readme

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

Discloses that extraction can be applied to project.faf and that force parameter overwrites existing values. Adds value beyond annotations, but no mention of side effects like file modification or performance impact.

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?

Single sentence with key action and parameters. Emojis and hashtags add style but may reduce professional conciseness. Still efficient.

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 main functionality but does not describe output format or what 'human_context' is. For a read/extract tool, expected return structure is missing.

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% with clear descriptions. The description enhances understanding by explaining the purpose of parameters (e.g., apply for preview vs apply, force for overwrite).

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?

Description clearly states the tool extracts '6 Ws' from README.md into human_context using smart pattern matching. It is specific and distinct from siblings like faf_read or faf_context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Smart pattern matching' but does not contrast with similar tools like faf_read or faf_chat.

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