get_type

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists output content, not idempotency, read-only nature, rate limits, or error behavior. Minimal transparency for a retrieval tool.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states action and input format, second lists output contents. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid name/ID) and any caveats. Among many sibling tools, could be more complete but meets minimal needs.

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 has one parameter with no description. The description adds that it accepts 'name or ID', clarifying the parameter's dual nature. Compensates for 0% schema coverage with meaningful context.

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?

Clearly states it gets full details for a type by name or ID, listing included components (damage relations, Pokémon, moves). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_type_matchups or get_moves_by_type by focusing on comprehensive retrieval.

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 on when to use this vs. more specific sibling tools (e.g., get_type_matchups, get_type_defenses). Implicit that it's for full details, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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