foaas_look

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that the tool generates offensive/profane content, only hinting at being 'more direct.' Crucial behavioral traits like return value format (likely a string with 'Look' and profanity) and potential social impact are omitted.

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, no filler. It is front-loaded with usage context. Slightly better if it started with 'Generates a rude 'look' message for...' but still concise and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a string, a message). It solely focuses on when to use it, ignoring the output behavior. Essential context is missing for an agent to understand the tool's full effect.

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 description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 requesting code review, pointing out issues, or drawing attention to problems, and distinguishes it as 'more direct than a polite review request.' This gives a specific verb-resource purpose, though it does not explicitly mention that the output is a profane message.

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 clear usage scenarios (code review, pointing out issues) and a comparative guideline (more direct than polite request). However, it does not specify when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like foaas_rtfm or foaas_chainsaw, which could serve similar yet distinct purposes.

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