faf_debug

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

The description implies a read-only inspection but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. As there are no annotations, the description could be more explicit about behavioral traits (e.g., no side effects, network usage).

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, compact sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool displays. However, it could mention that the output is text-based or include example output for 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?

With zero parameters, the description has no need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 debugs the 'grok-faf-mcp' environment by showing working directory, permissions, and FAF CLI status. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like faf_about or faf_status.

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 like faf_status or faf_about. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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