foaas_gfy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'military-style dismissal' and 'profanity' but does not describe the output format or confirm that the tool returns a string. Key behavioral traits like side effects or response structure are omitted, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and context.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It lacks information about the return value (e.g., a profane string), which is essential for understanding the tool's outcome. The sibling names hint at similar tools, but the description itself is incomplete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds minimal value beyond stating that a target is required, which is already covered by the schema's required field. Thus, baseline score of 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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'military-style dismissal, telling someone off in a formal manner, dismissing with phonetic code, or adding professional flair to profanity.' This distinguishes it from other profanity tools in the sibling list, such as 'foaas_asshole' or 'foaas_shutup'. The additional note 'Requires a target' reinforces the necessity of the 'to' parameter.

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 explicitly states the use case scenarios, implying when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names provide implicit context, but the description itself lacks direct exclusionary guidance.

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