Faf Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds the shape of what comes back (project info, stack, instructions, score), but since an output schema exists this adds limited behavioral value and it discloses no side-effect or edge-case behavior.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and then the return content, with no filler. Efficient and well-ordered, though the second sentence could be slightly leaner.

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?

For a read-only context-fetching tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and a usage context, so an agent can call it correctly. The only notable gap is guidance on the path parameter and explicit differentiation from sibling retrieval tools.

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 single 'path' parameter (default 'project.faf') is never addressed in the description. The phrase 'from a .faf file' faintly implies path targets a .faf file, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter or explain acceptable values.

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 (Get) and resource (Gemini-optimized context from a .faf file), and enumerates the sections returned (project info, stack, instructions, score). It partially differentiates from siblings by noting it avoids 'reading the full .faf structure', but does not clarify how it differs from close siblings like faf_gemini or faf_read.

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?

'Use this to quickly understand a project without reading the full .faf structure' gives a clear use case and implicitly contrasts with faf_read. However, no explicit alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition or prerequisite is stated, leaving the routing to inference among 12 siblings.

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