Analyze position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'cloud engine cache' suggesting a read-only query, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, error behavior for invalid FENs, or whether results are cached/network-dependent. This is moderate transparency, but gaps remain.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, and the second specifies the output format. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the input format, the analysis engine, and the output style. The only notable omission is clarification of the 'lines' parameter, but that is minor given the schema and defaults.

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 coverage is 0% because the description does not explicitly map parameters. 'fen' is covered implicitly ('given as a FEN'), but the 'lines' parameter is not explained at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving the optional parameter ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb 'Evaluate' and identifies a clear resource (a chess position in FEN) and method (Lichess' cloud engine cache). It also states the output (top engine lines with evaluations in SAN notation). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_game_analysis or get_opening_stats, which target different resources.

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 the use case: when you have a FEN and need engine analysis. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools. It lacks exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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