faf_bi_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It mentions bi-directional sync and target files but does not disclose behavioral traits such as conflict resolution, destructiveness, or side effects. The force parameter exists in schema but is not described in the description.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and recent version additions. It is front-loaded with the primary operation. Minor point: could be slightly more structured.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers purpose and version info, leaving out return values, prerequisites, and usage context. This is insufficient for the complexity of a synchronization tool.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 clearly states 'Bi-directional sync between project.faf and CLAUDE.md' and also lists additional target files, making the tool's specific verb and resource unambiguous. The 'bi' prefix in the name is explained, distinguishing it from sibling tools like faf_sync.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like faf_sync or faf_init. It does not mention prerequisites or use cases.

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