faf_status

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

Annotations indicate read-only, but the description does not disclose that the tool sets session context (as noted in the parameter description). This is a meaningful side effect not mentioned. No contradiction with annotations, but the description fails to add behavioral context beyond 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 very concise, consisting of one clear sentence. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the structure could be improved by separating the status check from the auxiliary purpose (showing status).

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 low complexity (single optional parameter, no enums, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the session-context side effect and does not clarify what 'AI-readability status' entails, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, including its side effect. The tool description adds no extra meaning for parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks for the presence of 'project.faf' and shows AI-readability status. It uses specific verb 'Check' and resource 'project.faf'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like 'faf_check' or 'faf_dna', leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'faf_check', 'faf_dna'). The description only states what it does, without context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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