get_moves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior disclosure burden. It states inputs and return value, but does not mention error behavior on invalid game/name, whether the learnset includes all move acquisition methods, or any potential rate limits or PokeAPI quirks. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a short summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundant information.

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's moderate complexity, the description is complete enough: it names the inputs, explains the output, and specifies the game context. The output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields in detail. It could mention edge cases, but overall it sufficiently equips an agent to invoke the 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 0%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: name_or_dex as a Pokemon name or national dex number, and game as a PokeAPI game identifier with an example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and is sufficient for the two-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: "List the learnset for a Pokemon in a specific game." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_pokemon or find_encounters by focusing on moves/learnset for a game-specific context.

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 makes the appropriate use case clear: to retrieve the learnset of a Pokemon in a given game. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context and siblings like suggest_moveset imply it is for raw learnset data rather than optimized movesets.

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