faf_tri_sync

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

Description lacks details on behavioral traits such as conflict resolution, file creation/modification side effects, or error states. Annotations only indicate it's not read-only but provide no further context. The description should clarify what actions cause writes and any prerequisites.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy. Immediately states the core function and outcome ('so context persists across sessions'). Front-loaded and 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?

Despite having only two parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a sync operation. It fails to explain the 'tri-directional' behavior (e.g., which direction writes occur), the effect of each action value, or how to properly use the tool (e.g., prerequisites for files).

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 descriptions for both parameters (action enum with export/status, path setting session context). The description doesn't add to parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 syncs three specific files (project.faf, CLAUDE.md, MEMORY.md) for context persistence, distinguishing it from siblings like faf_sync (likely bidirectional) and faf_bi_sync by emphasizing 'tri-directionally'.

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 over alternatives like faf_sync or faf_bi_sync. The description implies a use case (session persistence) but doesn't specify when not to use or how it differs from sibling sync tools.

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