faf_friday

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions vague features without stating side effects, permissions, error states, or whether it is read-only or destructive. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, but it lacks essential detail. It is not overly verbose, but conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, error behavior, or prerequisites. It does not. With many sibling tools, the lack of context makes it hard to choose correctly.

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 100% for the single parameter 'test', and the schema description already provides example typos. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Friday features — Chrome Extension detection, fuzzy matching' is vague. It does not specify the verb or precise resource (e.g., 'Detect Chrome Extensions' or 'Perform fuzzy matching'), and it fails to distinguish from siblings like faf_read or faf_score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as faf_enhance, faf_debug, or faf_read might overlap in purpose, but the description gives no exclusion criteria or context.

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