faf_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is non-destructive. The description adds specific detail on the guide's content (projects convention, path resolution, UX patterns), which is helpful context beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's role and immediately lists covered topics. No superfluous content.

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 zero-parameter guide tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose and scope. It could potentially mention that it serves as a meta-resource for using other tools, but it is adequate as is.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but given the simple schema, this is acceptable.

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 it is a 'usage guide' covering 'Projects convention, path resolution, and UX patterns'. This identifies the tool as a reference guide, distinct from action-oriented sibling tools like faf_init or faf_read.

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 implies use when needing guidance on project conventions, paths, and UX patterns within the MCP host. It sets clear context as a guide but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. Sibling tools suggest it is one of many, but the description does not differentiate beyond its guide nature.

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