get_moveset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that elite moves are included and that they require a TM/Elite TM, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, how 'battle form' is determined, or what happens if the Pokemon is invalid. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive detail.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key caveat about elite moves. It is concise and readable, though the line break in the middle is a minor formatting artifact. No wasted words.

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, the description covers the main purpose and the elite-move caveat. However, it lacks guidance on the expected input format for 'pokemon' and does not describe the output structure (no output schema exists). Given the sibling tools and the need to resolve moves, a bit more context about input format and return shape would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'pokemon' parameter. The description says 'for one Pokemon battle form' but does not explain what format the pokemon string should take (e.g., name, ID, form suffix), nor does it clarify how to specify a battle form. This is a significant gap for a tool with one undocumented 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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('moveset for one Pokemon battle form'), and clarifies that it resolves to full move records. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_move and search_moves by focusing on a Pokemon's moveset rather than individual moves, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context: it is for retrieving all legal PvE moves for a single Pokemon battle form. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pokemon or search_moves, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific form name).

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