faf_check

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that protect locks fields and unlock releases them, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention if locks are persistent or rated values are temporary.

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 consists of two compact sentences with the main action first, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains purpose, parameter effects, and usage context. Lacks details on return format, but for a check tool it is sufficient.

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 all 3 parameters. The description adds meaning: 'with protect it locks good/excellent fields from being overwritten, with unlock it releases them,' which clarifies the effect of the boolean parameters beyond the schema text.

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 that the tool inspects 'human_context fields' and rates them, with specific verb 'Inspect' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like faf_context and faf_score by focusing on rating and protecting fields.

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 says 'Use this to gauge context quality and guard your best answers,' providing clear context for use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is unique enough among siblings.

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