Team threat analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is calc-backed and specifies the kind of analysis it produces (OHKO/2HKO threats, speed tiers, speed-control flags). It doesn't cover edge cases like what happens if no input is provided, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by input instructions. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, inputs, and output highlights. With no output schema, it tells the user what kind of report to expect. It omits details like default behavior when no input is given or exact report structure, but it is sufficient for a moderately complex tool.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate. It does: team_paste is defined as a Showdown export and team_name as a saved team, and implies one or the other should be used. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema entries for these parameters.

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 produces a calc-backed threat report for a team against the top meta, listing OHKO/2HKO threats, speed tiers, and speed-control flags. This specific output distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc_damage (raw calcs) and meta_snapshot (meta overview).

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 gives clear context: use it to get a team-specific threat report versus the current top meta. It also tells the user to provide either a team_paste or team_name. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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