faf_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it checks for the project.faf file, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like potential side effects or prerequisites, but the annotation covers safety.

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 concise sentence with emoji. Every word adds value, and it front-loads the core purpose.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what 'AI-readability status' means. It lacks detail on the result format or interpretation, leaving the agent to infer. Adequate for a simple check but could be more informative.

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 parameter 'path' is described in the schema as 'Project path. Sets session context for subsequent calls.' The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 checks for project.faf (project DNA for AI) and shows AI-readability status. It uses specific verbs and target resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like faf_check or faf_dna.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many faf tools related to project setup, but the description does not clarify when status is appropriate over others like faf_check or faf_init.

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