foaas_think

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not describe what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a message, calls an API), any side effects, or output format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's execution and consequences.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the usage scenarios. It is efficient with no wasted words, but could be improved by including a brief functional statement at the beginning.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers when to use it but fails to explain what the tool returns or does behaviorally. This gap leaves the description incomplete for full 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 provides descriptions for both parameters (to and from) with full coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not improve understanding beyond the schema. 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 provides specific usage scenarios (questionable code, bad decisions, WTF commits) that clarify the tool's purpose and differentiate it from siblings like foaas_asshole or foaas_awesome. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool generates a response expressing confusion or disapproval, leaving some ambiguity about the action.

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 lists clear scenarios for when to use this tool (questionable code, bad decisions in PRs, etc.), giving context for appropriate use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the stated context implicitly guides selection among similar foaas tools.

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