faf_stringifyRead a .faf file and re-serialize parsed data into clean YAML for display or editing.
Convert parsed FAF data back to YAML string. Useful for displaying the raw .faf content or preparing it for editing. Reads the file, parses it, then re-serializes to clean YAML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | project.faf |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the internal pipeline ('reads the file, parses it, then re-serializes'), which is useful, but it omits whether the source file is modified, what happens if the file is missing or invalid, and any permission/auth requirements. The 'preparing it for editing' phrasing hints at a non-mutating return-only tool but never states it outright.
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?
Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the second and third sentences could be merged without loss.
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 the description need not spell out return values, and it correctly summarizes the output as clean YAML. For a single-optional-parameter transform tool this is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is error/default-path behavior for the 'path' argument.
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 'path' parameter (default 'project.faf'). The description refers only to 'the file,' adding no default value, path format, or resolution semantics beyond what the bare schema already shows, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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: 'Convert parsed FAF data back to YAML string,' which is concrete and distinguishable from read/validate/score siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling faf_read, so it falls short of the 5 bar.
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?
Offers two usage contexts ('displaying the raw .faf content or preparing it for editing'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., faf_read) or states when NOT to use it, so routing among the 13 siblings is largely left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.