foaas_thanks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only states the purpose without any details on side effects, response characteristics, or required permissions. For a simple web service, this is minimal disclosure; for example, it doesn't clarify if the action is read-only or if it triggers any external effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists use cases without extraneous words. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from a brief mention of output format without becoming 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential usage context. However, it lacks any explanation of return values or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter 'from' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema. According to the criteria, with high schema coverage, a baseline 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's purpose for sarcastic thanks, ironic gratitude, and similar nuances, which are distinct from sibling tools like foaas_asshole or foaas_gfy. It specifies the verb 'thanks' and the resource (the concept of thanks), making it easily interpretable.

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 explicit situations for using the tool, such as 'expressing annoyance while thanking' or 'responding to unwanted help'. It implies context for when to use it, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative sibling tools, which would enhance guidance.

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