get_type_effectiveness

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 states the tool 'calculates' a multiplier, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's based on game mechanics, returns a numeric value, or handles edge cases like dual types. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (calculating type interactions) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but fails to explain the calculation method, return format, or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the two parameters (attack_type and defend_types) with clear examples. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining type validity or format constraints, but this is acceptable given the high 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('type effectiveness multiplier'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_move' or 'get_pokemon', which might also involve type-related calculations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention if this is for battle simulations, data analysis, or other contexts, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_move' that might overlap in functionality. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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