foaas_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It claims the tool handles debugging, but it likely returns a FOAAS message (a joke response). This contradiction between implied functionality (log retrieval) and actual behavior (profanity generation) is a severe transparency failure.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with use-case context. However, it sacrifices accuracy for brevity; while concise, it is misleading. Still, it earns a 4 for not being verbose.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior and return value. It fails to mention that the tool is a FOAAS endpoint returning a profane log-related message, leaving the agent completely in the dark about what the tool actually does.

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% for the single 'from' parameter, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter insights beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 states 'Use when someone asks about runtime errors, debugging issues...' which implies the tool provides actual logs. However, the sibling tool names (e.g., foaas_asshole) indicate this is a FOAAS endpoint that returns a profane message, not real logs. The description is misleading and does not accurately convey the tool's purpose.

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 suggests using this tool for debugging requests, but it does not differentiate from alternatives. It fails to mention that the tool is a joke or that it returns a profane message, and it provides no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (like actual logging tools).

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