getStatByName

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get information') but does not explicitly state that it is safe or if there are side effects. Additionally, it lacks details about error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the stat name is invalid.

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 of 8 words. It front-loads the core purpose without any redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not indicate what kind of information is returned (e.g., stat value, category) or provide examples. For a simple lookup, it suffices but leaves room for improved completeness.

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 covers the single parameter 'name' with a description ('The name of the stat.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description simply paraphrases this ('by its name') without adding new meaning, such as format constraints, case sensitivity, or examples. Thus, it adds minimal value 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 'Get' as a specific verb and 'stat' as the resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getAbilityByName or getPokemonByName by specifying a different resource type. However, it does not elaborate on what a stat is in this context, which could be ambiguous without the sibling list.

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 its many siblings (e.g., getAbilityByName, getBerryByName). The description does not include any exclusions, alternative tool suggestions, or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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