fai_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the BLANK form behavior with 'not_evaluated' rather than a silent pass, the position-control diametral deviation rule, the file-write side effects of path (.csv/.svg/.pdf), defaulting behavior for part/rev/reference, and the certified-submission disclaimer. It omits whether the tool mutates document state or requires write permissions, but the disclosure is otherwise unusually rich for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Content is front-loaded and mostly scannable, but the description is long and mixes sentence fragments with a per-parameter list, and the Returns block re-lists a long field set. Most sentences earn their place, though the return-value enumeration is slightly over-detailed given the parameter prose already covering outputs.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, evaluation semantics, the blank-form path, output file side effects, and even the return key set. What is missing is guidance on which sibling tool precedes or supersedes it (balloon_drawing, gdt_check) and any note on the unexplained 'ratio' parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains results, path (including which formats write what), part/rev defaults, and reference (AS9102 field 6 with its default). Only 'ratio' is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, keeping this short of a 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('First-article inspection report for a drawing page') and pins it to a recognizable standard (AS9102 Rev B Form 3), which distinguishes it from siblings like balloon_drawing and inspection_plan. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 usage through the results/path mechanics (pass results to evaluate, omit to get a blank form) and explains that results maps balloon numbers to measured values, which effectively tells the agent when to supply each. But it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over gdt_check, balloon_drawing, or inspection_plan, nor any preconditions such as requiring a ballooned drawing page.

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