analyze_type_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It describes the output as 'Coverage report with matchup counts and notable weaknesses' but omits details on how coverage is calculated, edge cases like dual types, or limitations. This is a minimal disclosure of 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 short and structured with Args and Returns sections. The opening sentence captures the tool's purpose, and every line adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides a basic summary and return description. However, it lacks details on the analysis logic or what constitutes 'notable weaknesses,' which could be important for users deciding whether to use this tool. The output schema likely covers the return structure, so the description is adequate but not rich.

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 defines names_or_dexes as an array of strings with no description. The description adds essential meaning by specifying 'Pokemon names or dex numbers to analyze,' which clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's bare type. Though it could mention accepted formats, it effectively compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Summarize defensive type coverage for a roster,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pokemon or get_moves by focusing on team-level coverage analysis, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when analyzing team type coverage, but offers no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools such as suggest_moveset, which might overlap in context.

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