Faf Discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the search algorithm (ascend from start_dir through the current and parent directories) and the target filename (project.faf), implying a read-only operation. It does not say what happens on no match, whether multiple matches are returned, or whether traversal stops at a root, leaving real gaps.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint last where it belongs. Minor redundancy between 'walking up from start_dir' and 'searches the current directory and parent directories,' but no real waste.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with an output schema (so return format needn't be described), the description covers purpose, traversal semantics, and where it fits relative to faf_read. Missing only failure/no-match behavior and the parameter default.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It explains start_dir as the origin of the upward walk, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but omits the default value ('.') and whether relative/absolute paths are accepted.

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 ('Find') and resource ('.faf files'), plus the exact traversal behavior ('walking up ... parent directories for project.faf'). It also names the sibling it precedes (faf_read), so an agent can distinguish it from faf_read without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this before faf_read to locate the file automatically,' which gives ordering relative to an alternative. It lacks any when-not condition (e.g., what to do if the file is already known), so it stops short of a 5.

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