suggest_moveset

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

The description discloses that recommendations are based on 'simple heuristics' and that results are ranked, which adds useful context beyond the bare function. However, it does not detail what those heuristics are, whether external API calls are made, or how failures are handled. With no annotations, this falls short of full transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a clean Args/Returns section. Every line adds value, and the info is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and the general return type ('Ranked move recommendations'). With an output schema present, detailed return formatting is not needed. It lacks only deeper context like failure modes or the nature of the heuristics, making it nearly complete.

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?

All four parameters are explicitly described with their meaning: name_or_dex, game, limit, and include_tm. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing clear semantics for each argument beyond the schema's minimal titles.

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 a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('moveset for a Pokemon'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_moves or analyze_type_coverage. It states the exact action and target, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for moveset recommendations but lacks context such as 'use this when you need a ready-made set rather than raw move data' or exclusions for other tools. No prerequisites or edge cases are mentioned.

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