chesscom_archives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the output format ({archives:[url]}) and the meaning of the last entry, enriching behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also notes that no authentication is needed.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear purpose, return format, example, and auth note in a few sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information 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 the simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, usage, return format, and auth. No output schema exists, so explaining the return structure is valuable. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though it could optionally mention error behavior for invalid usernames.

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 already describes the username parameter as required and part of the URL path, covering 100% of parameters. The description only adds an example value ('hikaru') but no additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for 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 lists monthly game archives for a player, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by explicitly saying to call this before asking for a month's games, which differentiates it from chesscom_monthly_games.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool before fetching a month's games, providing clear timing context. It also shows how to extract the most recent month from the last archive URL. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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