Damage calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a key behavioral trait: every assumption is echoed back, and unspecified fields auto-fill. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the tool's default-filling behavior and iterative refinement, making it more transparent than a simple 'calculates damage' 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema and a complex 11-parameter tool, the description does not explain the return format or what the damage output looks like. It also does not mention that attacker, defender, and move are required, leaving a noticeable gap for a tool that needs those core 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?

The schema coverage is low (36%), so the description's statement that unspecified items/abilities/natures/EVs auto-fill adds semantic meaning to those optional fields. However, it does not explain the format of values for move, nature, ability, etc., leaving some parameters under-described.

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 opens with 'VGC damage calc via @smogon/calc', which clearly identifies the tool as a damage calculator for VGC using a specific library. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_team or meta_snapshot, which serve different purposes.

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 operational guidance: unspecified items/abilities/natures/EVs auto-fill from meta data, and users can override fields and re-call to refine. This clearly tells when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which are evident from the distinct sibling tools.

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