Faf Validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains that errors are must-fix and warnings should-fix and that messages are specific, but it never states that validation is read-only, that it touches no other state, or whether it can fail on a missing path.

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, front-loaded with the core action and output, then the error/warning distinction, then usage. Nothing is padded, though the return-value sentence is partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 single-argument, non-destructive validation tool with an output schema, the description covers action, output shape, and trigger condition adequately. The only real gap is the undocumented path parameter.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'path' or its default of project.faf. An agent must infer that the argument is a file path to the target .faf file.

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 gives a specific verb (validate) and resource (.faf file) and even names the outputs (score, tier, issues). It does not differentiate from the sibling faf_score, which likely also produces a score, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate without opening both.

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 after faf_init or when checking if a .faf file meets quality standards" gives a concrete trigger and sequencing. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative to faf_score, which is the obvious candidate.

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