list_dangerous_abilities

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 mentions what types of abilities are listed ('immunities, damage reduction, status reflection, etc.') but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, fields included), pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 ('List abilities that can significantly affect battle outcomes') and provides clarifying examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter or output.

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 (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at scope through examples, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a tool with no structured output or annotation support.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'category'. The schema's description fully documents the parameter's purpose, possible values, and default. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: 'List abilities that can significantly affect battle outcomes' with specific examples (immunities, damage reduction, status reflection). It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('abilities'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_ability' or 'search_pokemon_by_ability' beyond the listing focus.

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 sibling tools like 'get_ability' (which might retrieve details about a specific ability) or 'search_pokemon_by_ability' (which might find Pokémon with certain abilities), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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