faf_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (a check) but does not mention side effects, return format, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. The simplicity of the operation mitigates the need for extensive detail, but the description should at least hint at the output type.

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 five words, containing no filler. It is maximally concise while still conveying the essential purpose.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple check operation, the description provides the core purpose. However, it does not explain what 'project.faf' means or what the return value looks like, leaving some ambiguity. It is adequate but could benefit from a brief explanation of the checked resource.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema covers everything.

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 action: 'Check if project has project.faf'. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('project.faf'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, 'project.faf' is somewhat cryptic without further context, but it still distinguishes from sibling tools that perform different actions.

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, context, or when it is appropriate to use faf_status instead of other faf_* tools. The description lacks any usage instructions.

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