faf_agents

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states non-destructive behavior, block injection, and in-place updates, but lacks details on error handling, file creation if missing, or required permissions. Partial transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key action, no wasted words. Efficient and impactful.

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?

Given a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main action and side effects but does not mention the return value or error scenarios. Still sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'path' is not explicitly described in the description; the description implies it's the .faf file path but gives no additional meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 specifies the verb (export and write), resource (AGENTS.md from .faf file), and behavior (non-destructive, block injection, in-place updates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like faf_read or faf_context by focusing on creating a universal context file.

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 implies usage when generating a standard AGENTS.md for various AI agents, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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