faf_context

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

The description notably discloses that when invoked with a path it mutates session state that other tools resolve against, and that omission returns the current path. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which conflicts with an operation whose 'Set' branch changes the resolution context for every subsequent project tool call — a side effect on the environment. The description is honest, but the structured safety signal is misleading, so this is flagged as a contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core purpose and resolution semantics come first, the return value second, and the session-start directive last. The parenthetical about faf_read/faf_write earns its space by preventing a likely misuse. No filler.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the read/write duality, the returned value, and the recommended call timing. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly; only the annotation mismatch mars the picture.

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% and the single parameter's description already states 'Set active project path. If omitted, shows current context.' The prose restates that behavior with no added syntax, format, or validation detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb set (set/show) on a specific resource (the active project path) and explains its downstream effect on 'later faf_ project tools.' It even differentiates itself from sibling behavior by noting that faf_read and faf_write resolve against the server's working directory instead. An agent can distinguish this from faf_init or faf_sync without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call this once at the start of a session so the project tools target the right project,' and clarifies which tools it does and does not affect. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g., what happens if you call it twice, or whether it is required before faf_read/faf_write), so it falls short of a full 5.

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