pokemon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get ability details') and specifies the returned data without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's output.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output schema, so it doesn't explain return values, and with no annotations, it misses behavioral context. For a simple lookup tool, it's minimally viable but could benefit from more detail on usage or errors.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'ability' clearly documented as the ability name with examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ability details'), including what information is returned ('effect description and the list of Pokémon that can have this ability'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pokemon and get_type by focusing on abilities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_evolution_chain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_pokemon (which might include ability info) or get_evolution_chain. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data but does not cover critical aspects such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance, with no wasted words.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or usage context. For a straightforward read operation, this is minimally viable but could be improved with more contextual information.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid IDs or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get the full evolution chain') and resource ('by chain ID'), specifying what information is returned ('each species in the chain with its evolution trigger, minimum level, and evolution item'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pokemon or get_ability, which likely retrieve different types of Pokémon data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pokemon or get_ability. It mentions what the tool does but lacks context on appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid names/IDs), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get Pokémon details by name or ID') followed by a comprehensive but efficient list of what's returned. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic functionality and return data. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and provide more behavioral context about error conditions or limitations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by name or ID' but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Pokémon details'), listing exactly what information is returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ability, get_evolution_chain, and get_type by focusing on comprehensive Pokémon details rather than specific attributes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implicitly suggests this is for retrieving general Pokémon details, there's no explicit mention of when to choose this over sibling tools like get_ability for ability-specific queries or get_type for type information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns damage relations (double/half/no damage to and from) and limits results to 'the first 20 Pokémon of that type.' This provides important context about output format and result limitations that isn't available elsewhere.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides important behavioral details about what's returned and result limitations. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a tool with one parameter (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what information is returned (damage relations and Pokémon list) and includes the important limitation of returning only the first 20 Pokémon. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates reasonably well.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'type' already documented as 'Type name (e.g., "fire", "water", "electric").' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Get type effectiveness information and Pokémon list') and resource ('for a given type'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ability, get_evolution_chain, and get_pokemon by focusing specifically on type data rather than abilities, evolution chains, or individual Pokémon.

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 implies usage context by specifying what the tool returns (damage relations and Pokémon list), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or what other tools might be better for related queries.

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