validate_moveset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (validate) but doesn't describe what validation entails (e.g., checks for move legality, compatibility, or errors), the response format, error handling, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish: 'Valida un moveset contra PokeAPI por version_group.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the validation process, return values, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively. The conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical contextual details for a tool with multiple inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'version_group' implicitly, without explaining 'name' or 'moves' parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., Pokémon name) or the purpose of the 'moves' array, resulting in inadequate parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Valida un moveset contra PokeAPI por version_group.' This translates to 'Validates a moveset against PokeAPI by version_group,' which is a specific verb (validate) applied to a resource (moveset) with a target (PokeAPI) and a scoping parameter (version_group). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'suggest_moveset' or 'team_analysis,' which might involve movesets in different ways, so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'suggest_moveset' or 'team_analysis,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context, making it unclear how this validation differs from other moveset-related operations.

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