Faf About

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only informational operation via 'Returns metadata' and 'info', but does not explicitly state absence of side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich for a zero-param info tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the usage trigger. Slight redundancy between 'FAF format info' and 'Returns metadata about the FAF format' but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it still states the key returned metadata. For a simple, zero-param info tool with no annotations, it gives enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed or possible.

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?

States a specific verb 'Returns metadata' and resource 'FAF format, server version, and available MCP bridges', clearly distinguishing from write-oriented siblings like faf_init or faf_stringify. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but scope is clear enough for selection.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when users ask what FAF is or how it connects to other AI platforms.' No when-not conditions or named sibling alternatives are provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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