chess_analyze_game_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the engine used (Stockfish), default move time (500 ms), and the dependent parameter (game_id). It does not, however, specify output format or limits (e.g., max time, engine strength), but given minimal annotation burden, this is sufficient for a simple analysis 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 concise with a sentence, parameter list, and example. The example is useful but uses inconsistent quoting (double quotes inside string). Minimal waste, though the parameter list could be integrated into prose for better flow.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers input sufficiently. It lacks details on output or edge cases (e.g., invalid game_id), but with an output schema present, return values are documented elsewhere. Adequate for the tool's scope.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains game_id as 'UUID or numeric from the game's URL' and movetime_ms as 'Time per move for engine analysis', adding context beyond the schema's basic types and defaults. An example is also provided. The semantic clarity over schema fields is high.

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 analyzes a Chess.com game by game ID using Stockfish, including a specific verb ('analyze'), resource ('Chess.com game by its game ID'), and method ('using Stockfish'). It distinguishes from siblings like chess_analyze_pgn and chess_analyze_recent_game by focusing on game IDs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., chess_analyze_recent_game for recent games, chess_analyze_pgn for PGN data). The context is implied through the parameter focus on game_id, but exclusions or alternatives are absent.

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