faf_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'reset FAF state' which implies destructive action, but does not specify what exactly is destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. The description is vague about behavioral traits.

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 of 12 words, efficient and to the point. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

Given the complexity of 4 boolean parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, default behavior when no parameter is specified, or the extent of 'FAF state'. The tool appears to be a cleanup operation but lacks completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (cache, todos, backups, all). The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it mentions caches and temporary files but does not explicitly map to 'todos' or 'backups'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters.

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 that the tool clears caches, temporary files, and resets FAF state for a fresh start. The verb 'Clear' and the resources are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like faf_trust or faf_init, which might have related but distinct purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which the tool should be invoked. The description implies general cleanup but lacks explicit usage context.

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