faf_agents

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

The description notes the tool returns a merged or written result, adding context beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify side effects like file modification or potential data loss, which is slightly lacking given destructiveHint=false.

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 concise (two sentences, ~40 words), front-loaded with the key actions and resources, with no redundant 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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (merged or written result). It covers the tool's purpose and the four parameters are fully described in the schema. It is sufficient but could be slightly more explicit about the direction of each action.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool imports, exports, or syncs context between AGENTS.md and project.faf, with a specific verb and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact files involved.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('to keep a Codex/OpenAI-style AGENTS.md and your .faf in agreement'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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