Faf Gemini

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent, but the description adds real substance beyond them: it discloses that output is injected as a faf-managed block, that hand-written content is preserved, and that re-running updates the block in place. This tells the agent exactly what is and is not overwritten, which is the key behavioral risk for a write tool.

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?

Front-loaded correctly: the first clause gives verb, artifact and the non-destructive guarantee. The parenthetical listing of GEMINI.md sections is somewhat dense and partly decorative, but every sentence still earns its place.

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 values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description together cover the safety and idempotency profile well. The only real gap is the undocumented 'path' parameter, which is low-risk given it is optional with a 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?

There is a single parameter, 'path', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its expected format, or that it defaults to project.faf. The phrase 'from a .faf file' hints at the input but adds no syntax or resolution detail, so the schema carries an undocumented parameter with no compensating explanation.

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 artifact: 'Export and write GEMINI.md from a .faf file.' It also names what convention the output follows and equates itself to a known CLI command, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the likely sibling for other agent files (e.g. faf_agents), leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is the tool for producing GEMINI.md for Gemini CLI, but the description never says when to pick it over siblings like faf_agents or faf_context. There is no exclusion or precondition guidance, so the agent must infer the choice from tool names alone.

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