Faf Init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that it writes a valid FAF YAML file with all required sections, refuses to overwrite existing files, and confines the path to the project root (cwd / FAF_ALLOWED_ROOTS). The only gap is the absence of any note on permissions or what the write returns, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of load-bearing information (purpose, output validity, non-overwrite rule, path scope), with the primary action front-loaded. No filler.

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 not be documented. The description covers purpose, safety behavior, and path scoping for a 4-parameter write tool, leaving only minor gaps around parameter defaults and privilege requirements.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it maps three of four parameters (name, goal, language) plus the path constraint (root confinement). It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not clarify defaults or that all four parameters are optional.

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: creates a starter .faf file and enumerates the fields written (project name, goal, language). It also names faf_discover as the pre-check sibling, giving partial differentiation from the large sibling set, though it does not contrast with close relatives like faf_auto or faf_migrate.

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 gives the when-not condition ('Will not overwrite an existing file') and routes to the alternative ('use faf_discover first to check'). This is clear conditional guidance, but it does not describe the general when-to-use case versus faf_auto/faf_migrate for starting a project.

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