faf_readme

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

Annotations indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it can optionally apply extracted content to project.faf, and force overwrite is available. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies files permanently or if preview mode is safe. The smart pattern matching behavior is mentioned but not detailed.

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 short but uses emojis and informal language ('🧡⚡️') that may be distracting. It front-loads the key action but could be more professionally structured. It fits in one line but is not optimally readable.

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 description covers the main extraction task and parameter behaviors. However, it does not explain what the '6 Ws' map to in human_context, nor what happens if the README is missing. For a tool with no output schema, additional context about return format or success/failure would be helpful.

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%, but the description enriches each parameter beyond the schema: it clarifies the default behavior for 'apply' (preview only) and 'force' (fill empty slots only), and notes that 'path' sets session context. This provides actionable guidance for the agent.

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 extracts '6 Ws' from README.md into human_context. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like faf_read by focusing on structured extraction. However, the meaning of 'human_context' is not explained, and the informal tone slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like faf_read or faf_context. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., project must have README) or conditions for apply vs preview. Sibling tools are many but no comparison is given.

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