foaas_chainsaw

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

No annotations provided. The description only mentions that it 'requires a target', implying the 'to' parameter is needed. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response looks like.

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 clear sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second states a requirement. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's role in a set of similar tools, the description covers the core usage. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from describing what the tool returns (the phrase itself), and it does not fully differentiate from siblings.

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 100%, with both 'to' and 'from' already well described. The tool description reinforces that a target is required but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 emotional tone (sarcastic disbelief, exaggerated shock, absurdity, pop culture references) and that it requires a target. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'foaas_asshole' (direct insult) or 'foaas_awesome' (sarcastic praise), though it does not explicitly name the exact phrase or output format.

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 hints at when to use this tool (for specific reactions), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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