faf_list

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or impacts system state. The verb 'list' suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated. The description fails to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose and context without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the key action.

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 with a complete schema, but no output schema. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of names or objects) or pagination behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but could provide more context about expected results.

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 all parameters, so the description adds little new meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The phrase 'discover projects with project.faf files' aligns with the 'faf' filter option but does not provide additional detail.

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 the tool's function: listing directories and discovering projects with project.faf files. It uses a specific verb ('list', 'discover') and resource ('directories', 'projects') and differentiates from sibling tools like faf_read and faf_write, which handle file content or creation.

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 mentions it is 'Essential for FAF discovery workflow,' which implies a primary use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., faf_status for project state). No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.

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