PalTool — Palworld Breeding for AI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits (20 calls/day per IP) and mentions the need for an API key for more calls, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the output format, potential errors, or any side effects (though it's clearly read-only). This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the core function, the second provides practical usage limits and an alternative. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains what it does, includes rate limits, and points to an alternative. It could elaborate on what 'routes' means in output form or mention prerequisites, but the parent-combination explanation covers the core need.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'pal' and 'max_depth'. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond restating the 1-3 step depth, which aligns with max_depth. According to the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find breeding routes for a Pal in Palworld' and explains the output goal (parent combinations 1-3 steps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_breeding_child or get_pal_info, which focus on different breeding or info tasks.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to breed a target Pal from parents) and provides clear context about rate limits and alternative access methods. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like get_breeding_child or state exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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 transparency burden. It discloses the free-tier rate limit and the basic read nature, but doesn't state error behavior, output format, or whether parent order matters. The rate limit adds value beyond schema fields.

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 short sentences front-load the core function and include a rate-limit note. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it states inputs, output, and rate limit. It could specify whether parent order affects the result or clarify the exact child return format, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 each parameter already described as a Pal name or id. The description only refers to 'two parent Pals' and adds no further semantic detail, such as whether parent order matters, 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?

Description uses specific verb 'return' and resource 'child' from two parent Pals, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_breeding_routes. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Context is clear: use when you have two specific parents and want their direct offspring. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives like find_breeding_routes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 must carry the full burden. It discloses the free-tier rate limit (20 calls/day per IP) and outlines the output fields, but does not mention error behavior, required authentication, or response format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and output fields; the second gives a concrete usage constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 it has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential return fields and the free-tier limit. It does not include error handling or alternate usage, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient. Sibling tools suggest a 'search first, then get details' pattern, which is implied but not explicit.

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 already describes the 'pal' parameter as 'Pal name or id' with 100% coverage. The description adds context about what information will be returned for that pal, but does not add extra parameter-specific meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a Pal in Palworld'), and lists concrete output fields (id, name, element, breed power, work skills, food, egg type). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_breeding_routes or get_passive, which focus on other aspects.

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 clearly implies this is for retrieving full details of a specific Pal, not for searching or breeding routes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context and sibling list make the use case apparent.

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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the rate limit ('Free tier: 20 calls/day per IP') and lists return fields, providing useful context. However, it does not explain behavior for unknown skills, error handling, or any limitations beyond the rate limit, so the transparency is partial.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core action and resource in the first few words. The second sentence adds a critical operational detail (rate limit). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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), the description is fairly complete. It communicates the return fields (id, name, description, effects) and the rate limit, which are key for an agent. However, it omits any mention of behavior for missing or invalid input, which would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema fully explains the 'skill' parameter with an example. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a passive skill in Palworld.' It also lists the key fields returned (id, name, description, effects), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on breeding routes, breeding children, pal info, and pal search.

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 when to use this tool (when needing passive skill details) but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid it or which sibling tool to use instead. The sibling names suggest alternatives, but the description itself doesn't offer usage boundaries or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 disclosure. It discloses a significant behavioral trait (20 calls/day per IP rate limit) and indicates the return type (basic info list). However, it does not address other behavioral aspects such as exact/partial matching, empty result behavior, or ordering, which would be valuable for an unannotated tool.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the action, searchable fields, return type, and a key operational constraint are all included without padding.

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 search tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers query semantics, return type, and rate limiting. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this tool relates to sibling tools like get_pal_info, but this is not critical for basic usage.

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% and both parameters have descriptive text. The description adds the allowed search fields (name, id, element) and clarifies the limit's default, but these largely overlap with the schema descriptions. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the description adds only marginal semantic 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource (Palworld Pals) and search dimensions (name, id, element). It also states that it returns a 'basic info list,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pal_info that likely provide detailed individual 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 implies when to use the tool (when searching for Pals by name/id/element) and adds a free-tier rate limit as practical context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_pal_info or find_breeding_routes, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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