faf_agents

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

The description discloses that the tool writes output to AGENTS.md in the project root, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, required permissions, or any destructive actions. Given no annotations, the description partially fulfills transparency needs.

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 consists of three concise sentences that front-load the main action and output details. No superfluous text, though it could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness regarding parameter usage, error handling, and file existence behavior. The single parameter is poorly explained, and no usage scenarios are provided, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the 'path' parameter, but it only mentions exporting from a .faf file without specifying the parameter's role, format, or default behavior. This adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 exports AGENTS.md from a .faf file, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on agent context export, which is unique among the listed tools.

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_context or faf_read. It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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