faf_tri_sync

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds context about the three files synced but no additional behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate with 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?

Two sentences with purpose front-loaded. Some marketing fluff ('Nelly never forgets') adds personality but is not essential; still concise overall.

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 the sync purpose and mentions memory persistence, but lacks details on return values (e.g., status action output), prerequisites, or error conditions. Adequate for a simple tool with 100% schema coverage.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. Description does not add any extra meaning or examples for parameters, meeting the baseline for 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?

Description clearly states it syncs three files (project.faf, CLAUDE.md, MEMORY.md) to maintain AI memory across sessions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like faf_sync or faf_bi_sync, which could cause confusion.

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 for persistent memory ('Your AI remembers your project across every session') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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