faf_gemini

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool 'returns the merged or written result' and implies file modification. It does not detail permissions, side effects, or error scenarios, but the addition of return value context is moderate.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and resource, then usage and return. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 4 parameters, 3 actions, and no output schema. The description covers the high-level purpose and return value ('merged or written result') but lacks detail on conflict resolution for sync, error handling, or return format. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their meanings (action enum, force, merge, path). The description adds no new parameter-level insights, matching the baseline of 3.

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 synchronizes context between GEMINI.md and project.faf, with explicit verbs (import, export, sync). It distinguishes from sibling tools like faf_sync by specifying the Gemini CLI convention, making its domain unique.

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 provides a clear use case: 'keep a Gemini context file and your .faf in agreement from one source.' It implies the context and purpose, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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