Faf Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (project info, stack, instructions, score) and that it reads rather than writes, but says nothing about auth, side effects, error behavior for missing files, or what happens with the default path.

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 the action and purpose. No filler. The 'Use this to...' sentence is slightly redundant with the earlier enumeration but earns its place by framing intent.

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 return value details need not be described; the description still usefully summarizes sections. Missing the path parameter behavior and any file-not-found handling, but otherwise adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description never mentions the 'path' parameter, its default, or the expected .faf file format/location. With 1 param and low coverage, the description fails to compensate at all, though the surface area is small.

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 and resource: 'Get Gemini-optimized context from a .faf file', followed by an enumeration of what's returned (project info, stack, instructions, score). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like faf_read, faf_gemini, or faf_score, which likely overlap in scope.

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?

Provides an implied use case ('to quickly understand a project without reading the full .faf structure'), which is useful framing. But it doesn't name which sibling to use instead for a full read (faf_read) or how it differs from faf_gemini, which is especially important given the overlapping sibling set.

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