team_analysis

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 but provides almost none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources it uses (beyond mentioning PokeAPI), what format the output takes, or any error conditions. The Spanish description may confuse English-speaking agents about the tool's actual 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 extremely concise (one sentence in Spanish), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. While not verbose, the single sentence doesn't effectively communicate the tool's purpose to an English-speaking agent. The structure is simple but the language mismatch creates additional cognitive load.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what defensive synergies means, how they're calculated, what the output format is, or provide any meaningful context for the single parameter. The language mismatch further reduces completeness for English-speaking agents.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter ('team' array of objects with 'name' property), the description provides no information about parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'team', what the 'name' property should contain (Pokémon names? IDs?), or any constraints beyond the schema's min/max items. 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 'Sinergias defensivas del equipo (usa tipos de PokeAPI y tabla de tipos)' states the tool analyzes defensive synergies using PokeAPI types and type tables, which gives a vague purpose. However, it's in Spanish while the tool name and context are in English, creating potential confusion. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'type_matchup' or 'calc_stats' that might also involve type analysis.

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. With siblings like 'type_matchup' and 'calc_stats' that might handle similar type-related analyses, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected over those options. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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