chess

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists action signatures and parameters, with no mention of side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple sub-actions.

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 well-structured with a clear introduction, a list of actions with parameter objects, and examples. It is front-loaded with the preference note. Slightly verbose but each section 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 sub-actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation details: action names, parameter formats, and a delimiter for multiple PGNs. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could mention the output schema briefly.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description compensates by detailing the expected params for each action (e.g., 'limit': int = 5) and providing examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema. Could be improved by explaining the output schema or constraints.

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 it is a 'Unified Chess tool' and lists the specific actions it supports, distinguishing it from the sibling chess_* tools. However, it is not a single verb+resource but a collection, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Explicitly says 'prefer the specific chess_* tools instead,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It also lists all supported actions, enabling the agent to decide when this unified tool is appropriate.

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