Faf Model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the file fills 'all 21 scored slots' and an argument-free call 'list[s] all 15 available project types'. That empty-argument fallback is genuinely behavioral information the schema cannot convey. It stops short of stating the operation is side-effect-free or what an invalid project_type returns.

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, all front-loaded with the core output first and the no-argument behavior last. There is mild redundancy between '100% Trophy-scored' and 'shows exactly what 100% looks like', but nothing is wasted.

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 simple single-parameter fetch tool with an output schema present, the description covers selection, output nature, and the empty-argument mode, so an agent can call it correctly. The main omission is not distinguishing itself from the many sibling faf_* tools that also operate on .faf files.

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% and the single parameter has no schema description or enum, so the description must compensate — and it largely does by explaining that project_type selects a project type and that the 15 valid values can be enumerated via a no-argument call. It does not specify the accepted value format (slug vs. label), leaving a small gap the agent must probe for.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a ... example .faf file') plus a clear scope ('for a specific project type'), so its purpose is unambiguous. It never names which sibling it complements (faf_init, faf_score, faf_validate), but against a 13-tool family that only costs it the top score.

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 as a reference when building or improving a .faf file' supplies a concrete usage context, which is stronger than mere implication. However, it names no alternative and states no when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of an explicit routing rule.

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