gemini-faf-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns a 'complete, realistic project.faf' with 'all 21 scored slots' filled, shows 'exactly what 100% looks like,' and has dual functionality (with and without arguments). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details about completeness and usage. Every sentence adds value: the second explains what's returned, the third gives usage context, and the fourth covers the no-argument case. Zero wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, dual functionality), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to discover options. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on usage guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose: 'for a specific project type' and clarifies that calling 'without arguments' lists available types. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints for the project_type parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a 100% Trophy-scored example .faf file for a specific project type' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on providing reference examples rather than scoring, validating, or other operations mentioned in sibling names like faf_score, faf_validate, etc.

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 states when to use it ('Use this as a reference when building or improving a .faf file') and provides clear alternatives for different use cases ('Call without arguments to list all 15 available project types'). This gives comprehensive guidance on usage scenarios.

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