foaas_thinking

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only notes that the tool is an 'alternative phrasing' and does not describe output format, side effects (e.g., non-destructive), or what the returned content looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, each adding distinct value: first explains purpose, second gives usage context. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 and no annotations, the description covers usage scenarios but omits return format (e.g., a string message) and any behavioral details. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no supplementary structured data.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 specifies it's an alternative phrasing for questioning thought processes, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling foaas_think by mentioning 'offers variety in tone'. It identifies the verb-resource (questioning someone's thought process) and differentiates from a similar tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('similar scenarios as foaas_think - bad code, poor decisions, questionable commits') and implicitly distinguishes it as a tonal alternative, providing clear decision criteria.

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