faf_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose important traits: read-only and operates on the real filesystem. However, it omits details like command availability, error behavior, or what the report representation means beyond color/percentage, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 extraordinarily concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no redundant words.

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?

Despite lacking a output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, key safety trait (read-only), and the real-filesystem caveat. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for such a simple tool, but it could be slightly richer.

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 single parameter `project` is fully described in the schema, including its default. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details; it does not go beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

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 verb and resource: "Run `faf score` on a project directory" to produce a "quality report" with specific outputs (slot fill %, color). This distinguishes the tool from sibling migration/sync tools.

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 implies clear usage context: when you need a quality report for a project directory. It also notes the tool is read-only, signaling safe use, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use it compared to siblings.

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