Faf Model

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value: it explains the return is a complete realistic project.faf covering all 33 slots, including 'slotignored' semantics for non-applicable slots. It omits any rate limits or auth notes, but for a read-only reference tool this is solid disclosure.

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 with the core action, then adds scope, usage, and the no-argument behavior. Four sentences, each adding distinct information, though the 'shows exactly what 100% looks like' clause is mildly redundant with the Trophy-scored framing.

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 detailed, and the description still characterizes the returned file usefully. For a single-parameter read-only tool it covers purpose, usage, return shape, and no-arg behavior, with only the parameter's value format left unstated.

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% for the single project_type parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaningful behavior — omitting the argument lists all 15 project types — but never states the expected value format or enumerates the valid types, leaving the parameter partially opaque.

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: 'Get a 100% Trophy-scored example .faf file for a specific project type', and clarifies it returns a complete project.faf filling all 33 scored slots. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like faf_read or faf_init, so it stops short of a 5.

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' clearly frames when to reach for this tool, and 'Call without arguments to list all 15 available project types' gives the discovery path. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so it lacks the explicit when-not guidance of a 5.

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