Faf Validate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a safe, local read. The description adds useful behavioral nuance by categorizing output into errors (must fix) and warnings (should fix), but it doesn't expand on whether validation can fail, how deep the checks go, or any file prerequisites. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the result of validation, then output structure, then usage. No filler or redundancy; every sentence is informative.

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 needn't detail return values, and it correctly sketches them anyway. It covers purpose, output categories, and when to run it. The only minor gap is not relating it to sibling tools like faf_score, but for a single-param read-only validator it is sufficiently complete.

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 'path' parameter has a default but no description in the schema. The description says 'a .faf file' but does not explain the path parameter, its default, or expected format. It adds only marginal meaning, so baseline 3 (one param, implicit scope) is fair.

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 states a specific verb (validate) and resource (.faf file), and it names the concrete return values: score, tier, and issues. This distinguishes it from siblings like faf_score (which only scores) and faf_read, giving an agent a clear functional boundary without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use it 'after faf_init' and 'when checking if a .faf file meets quality standards', providing clear usage context and a workflow anchor. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs. faf_score), but the context is strong.

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