get_evolutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what format the evolution chain data returns, whether there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. It provides no behavioral context beyond the vague purpose statement.

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 (one phrase), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. While it's not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The mixed language and lack of complete sentences make it feel incomplete rather than purposefully concise.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 1 required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does clearly, how to use it, what the parameter means, or what to expect in return. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based on the provided 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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'name' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'name' refers to (species name, Pokémon name, identifier format), what values are valid, or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Cadena/grafo de evoluciones desde species->evolution_chain' is vague and mixes Spanish/English terms. It suggests retrieving evolution chains but doesn't clearly state the action verb or what resource it operates on. While it distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_pokemon' or 'type_matchup', it's not specific enough about what 'evolutions' means in this context.

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, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_pokemon' or 'search_names'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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