plan_evolutions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'enumerate' and 'returns' and specifies the high-level output, but it does not disclose edge cases, error conditions, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple query tool 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 succinct and well-structured with a purpose line, Args section, and Returns section. Every element serves a purpose, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It provides a high-level return summary and leaves detailed field documentation to the output schema. Minor ambiguity about the exact interpretation of 'evolution paths' exists, but overall it is adequate.

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 input schema provides only a field name and type (string) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explicitly defining the parameter as either a Pokemon name or national dex number, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. This is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'enumerate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'evolution paths' for a given Pokemon. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_moves or get_sprites, which focus on other aspects.

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 vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or sibling tools. Usage is implied from the name and description (i.e., when evolution paths are needed), but there is no explicit guidance.

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