faf_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns specific sections (project info, stack, instructions, score), implying a read-only action. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or clarify what 'Gemini-optimized' entails.

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 is two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the action, the second adds essential context about the return value. Perfectly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the key return sections and usage intent. It lacks error handling or path requirements, but the core functionality is well communicated.

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 schema has one parameter ('path') with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or provide any additional context about its format or behavior, relying solely on the implicit reference to 'a .faf file.'

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('.faf file'), and the specific intent ('Gemini-optimized context'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like faf_read by emphasizing a quick summary without reading the full structure.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'quickly understand a project without reading the full .faf structure.' It implies alternative usage (full read via faf_read) but does not name it explicitly.

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