faf_check

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' contradicts the description's mention of 'field protection' and parameters like 'protect' and 'unlock' that imply state changes. The description does not address this contradiction or explain side effects, severely lacking transparency.

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, fitting in a single sentence with emojis. It front-loads the core purpose ('Quality inspection'), but the informal style may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 many siblings, the tool's unique role is somewhat clear. However, missing output schema and lack of usage guidance, combined with the annotation contradiction, leave the description incomplete for safe and effective use.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It hints at field protection but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints, making it adequate but not helpful.

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 'Quality inspection for human_context fields + field protection' and shows ratings, effectively indicating the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like faf_status and faf_score by focusing on field health.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context of quality inspection is implied but not explicit.

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