foaas_cool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the output is sarcastic ('Peak sarcasm energy') but does not specify the return format (e.g., plain text), side effects, or that it is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but lacks complete transparency.

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 short but informative, fitting the essential usage context into a single sentence plus a tagline. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but no fluff is present.

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 has no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description should explain the return value or behavior. It only describes when to use it, not what the tool actually produces or the effect of the 'from' parameter beyond the schema. This leaves the agent without a full understanding of the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'from' already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, per guidelines, 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 states the tool is for 'sarcastic approval' and lists usage scenarios, which gives a clear sense of its purpose. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'generates a sarcastic message') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'foaas_awesome' or 'foaas_think', which also convey tones. The verb 'use for' is less precise than a direct action verb.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (sarcastic approval, dismissing excuses, etc.), which helps the agent select this tool over others. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for most cases.

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