author_agents_md

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does this well: it explicitly states the tool returns a draft, does not write a file, relies only on repo facts or project.faf content, and 'nothing invented.' This gives the agent a reliable model of side effects and output trustworthiness.

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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause adds necessary information: source of facts, quality tiers, and the non-write side effect. It avoids repetition of schema or annotation details, so there is no wasted text.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the output is (a draft), what data feeds it, when the result is better or best, and that it does not modify the filesystem. An agent can decide whether and how to invoke this tool without ambiguity.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description still adds relevant semantic context by distinguishing the BETTER and BEST input states based on whether a project.faf exists, which helps the agent understand what determines output quality.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Author an AGENTS.md for this project and return the draft.' It also clearly isolates this tool from its siblings by framing it as draft generation rather than reading or listing existing AGENTS.md content, and it emphasizes that no file is written.

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 gives clear contextual guidance on when output is BETTER versus BEST, specifically depending on whether a project.faf exists. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as read_agents_md, but the purpose and the non-write guarantee make the intended usage clear enough.

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