get_battle_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes what information is returned (HP, moves with PP, species, level), the conditional behavior ('Returns a message if not in battle'), and that it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'). It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific return details. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (battle state retrieval), no annotations, 0 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and the conditional behavior when not in battle. The output schema will handle return value details.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 the specific action ('Get current battle information') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on battle-specific data rather than general game state, party information, or input actions. It precisely identifies what information is retrieved (active Pokemon HP/moves, enemy Pokemon species/level/HP).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Get current battle information') and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_game_state' (general state) and 'get_party' (party info). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for battle-related queries.

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