get_pokemon

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 data retrieval from PokeAPI but doesn't specify traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally, though it correctly implies a read-only action.

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 very brief and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. It wastes no words, but the use of Spanish ('Ficha') and lack of structure might slightly hinder clarity for non-Spanish speakers. Overall, it's efficient but could be more polished.

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 complexity (a data retrieval operation with one parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'name', and the description adds no information about it. It doesn't explain what 'name' represents (e.g., Pokémon name, ID), valid formats, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 states the tool retrieves a 'ficha' (sheet/card) with types, base stats, and abilities from PokeAPI, which indicates a read operation for Pokémon data. However, it's vague about the exact verb (e.g., 'fetch' or 'retrieve') and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'search_names' or 'get_evolutions', which might overlap in purpose. The Spanish term 'Ficha' adds some ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings such as 'search_names' for broader queries or 'get_evolutions' for related data. The description implies usage for detailed Pokémon info but lacks explicit context for selection.

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