foaas_shutup

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

The description claims a 'direct and unambiguous dismissal' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only or destructive, nor does it describe the response nature (e.g., a string containing an insult). No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden, but it fails to provide sufficient behavioral detail.

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 concise at two sentences, covering use cases and intent. However, the second sentence 'Direct and unambiguous dismissal' could be more informative; it is slightly redundant with the first sentence.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple dismissal tool. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a string like 'Shut the f*ck up, [to].'), which would help an agent understand the output format. It covers the input well but misses output context.

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?

The description adds significant meaning to the parameters: it explains that 'to' can be a person, issue author, PR creator, bug, etc., and provides default value for 'from'. With 100% schema coverage, the description still enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to shut up someone in the context of bikeshedding, endless debates, off-topic discussions, nitpicking, or trivial arguments. It uses specific verbs ('dismissal') and resource ('shut up'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scenarios where it is appropriate.

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 lists when to use the tool, covering common scenarios like bikeshedding and code review nitpicking. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative sibling tools, though the context hints at the range of other FOAAS tools.

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