Faf Score

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful scope ('quick', 'status check' vs error-detail path) and names the scoring engine, but doesn't disclose the return shape beyond the three fields, and an output schema exists anyway. Modest added value over annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences; the purpose is front-loaded and the routing instruction follows immediately. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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-param read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and sibling routing, which is most of what's needed. The gap is the undocumented 'path' parameter, whose 0% schema coverage leaves an agent guessing about valid inputs.

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?

Only one optional parameter (path) with a default of 'project.faf', but schema description coverage is 0% — the schema gives no hint what 'path' points to or its format. The description does not compensate; it never mentions path, accepted file locations, or what happens if omitted/defaulted.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Mk4 score check' returning score, tier, and slot counts. Distinguishes itself from sibling faf_validate by routing error-detail needs elsewhere. Not a 5 because 'Mk4 always-33 scoring engine (faf-kernel parity)' is jargon that may be opaque to a first-time agent, but the core purpose is legible.

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 says 'Use this for status checks; use faf_validate when you need error details' — names the alternative and the condition that selects it. This is exactly the when/when-not routing an agent needs.

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