foaas_rtfm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the purpose but does not disclose what the tool actually returns (e.g., a specific message) or any side effects. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences clearly and concisely convey the tool's purpose and usage. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the core use case.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by briefly noting the response format (e.g., a FOAAS-style RTFM message), but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100% as the sole parameter 'from' is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool is for handling 'RTFM' situations, such as questions clearly answered in documentation or lazy requests. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact use case, making it clear when this tool should be selected.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (for basic issues, no research effort, RTFM scenarios) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, given the sibling list, the context implies alternatives exist for other responses.

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