faf_agents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the operations (import/export/sync) but does not detail side effects like overwriting or merging, which are only partially covered by parameter descriptions. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the actions and key files, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight when to use each action.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, changed files). It does not. Additionally, prerequisites (e.g., existence of AGENTS.md or project.faf) are not mentioned, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already provided. The schema adequately explains action, force, merge, and path.

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 performs Import/Export/Sync operations between AGENTS.md and project.faf, identifying the specific files and the context of AI interoperability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like faf_sync, which likely handles other sync operations.

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 implicitly defines usage through the action enum (import/export/sync), providing clear context for each action. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like faf_sync, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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