faf_what

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false (implicit), so the description's 'quick explanation' confirms non-destructive behavior. However, it adds no new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether it returns text or links, or any other side effects.

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 with an emoji, front-loaded, and no superfluous content. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and structured.

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 parameterless informational tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., plain text, markdown, or a link), which could help the agent anticipate results. Minor gap for completeness.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (since empty). The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline is 4, and the description meets it without adding confusion.

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 explains the .faf format and project DNA, using a question format. It is distinct from siblings like faf_about or faf_dna, as it focuses on the 'what is' question. However, 'quick explanation' is somewhat vague, lacking specificity on depth or format.

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 such as faf_about or faf_dna. The description does not mention conditions for use or exclusion scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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