calc_accuracy

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the multiplicative effects of bright powder (x0.9) and compound eyes (x1.3), support for accuracy/evasion rank stages, and for multi-hit moves, the return of hit distribution and all-hit probability. This is comprehensive for a calculation tool.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences with an example. It front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently covers both normal and multi-hit scenarios. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and output for the key use cases (single-hit and multi-hit). It could mention default values or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining how parameters like bright_powder, compound_eyes, and stages affect the calculation. It also clarifies the special handling for multi-hit moves, which is not obvious from parameter names alone.

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 purpose: 'calculate move accuracy.' It specifies support for items (bright powder, compound eyes), accuracy/evasion stages, and multi-hit moves like triple axel/triple kick. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like calc_damage and calc_stat.

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 context on when to use: for accuracy calculations including items and stages. It also mentions handling of multi-hit moves. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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