faf_auto

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scans for manifests, extracts dependencies, and creates/updates .faf, including that it only fills empty slots. Missing details like permissions or side effects, but overall adequate.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second details scanning behavior, third clarifies update behavior. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers key actions and scan targets but lacks details on error handling, what happens if .faf exists with non-empty slots, or return value. Output schema exists but is not described. Adequate for a straightforward tool but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain the two parameters (directory, path). Their meaning is only implied by context, which is insufficient for precise agent use.

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 auto-detects project stack and generates/updates a .faf file. It specifies what manifest files it scans and what it extracts, distinguishing it from siblings like faf_init which likely does not auto-detect.

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 for auto-detecting project stack but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like faf_init or faf_validate. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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