chess_analyze_multiple_pgn

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that engine analysis occurs per move and defaults to 500ms, but does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, rate limits, or any side effects. The example is helpful but limited.

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 extremely concise: one line of purpose, two lines of parameter details, and one example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. Front-loaded structure is effective.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, one required) and without annotations, the description covers the essential input semantics. An output schema exists but is not detailed; the description does not explain return format, though it should. Still, it is largely sufficient for an analysis tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds significant meaning: it explains the pgn_strings format (supported delimiters) and clarifies movetime_ms as time per move with a default. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 multiple PGNs separated by specific delimiters. It distinctly differentiates itself from sibling tools like chess_analyze_pgn, chess_analyze_game_id, and chess_analyze_recent_game by focusing on batch analysis of user-provided PGN strings.

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 clear syntax for input format and includes a parameter example, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus chess_analyze_pgn (single PGN) or other analysis tools. It implies usage for batch PGN analysis but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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