foaas_legend

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 only states the purpose and that a target is required. It does not mention that the tool generates a humorous/meme-like message, its safety profile, or any side effects. The description lacks transparency about the nature of the output.

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 sentences, directly stating the purpose and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary use. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description covers purpose and parameter requirement adequately. However, it omits the humorous/ironic context of the FOAAS service, which might confuse an agent unfamiliar with the convention. It is complete for basic use but lacks nuance.

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 clear descriptions for both 'to' and 'from'. The description adds 'Requires a target person' which reinforces the 'to' parameter but does not provide significant new semantics beyond the schema. 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 states the tool is for praising someone highly, calling amazing, recognizing exceptional work, or complimenting heroic efforts. The verb 'praising' and specific use cases make the purpose explicit. The positive tone distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'foaas_asshole' which are clearly insults, so the agent can differentiate.

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 indicates when to use (for praise/recognition) and implies it requires a target person, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or compare to alternatives. The sibling tool names suggest others are for insults, but this is not stated. The guidance is minimal but functional.

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