chess_analyze_recent_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Run engine analysis' with no information about side effects (e.g., mutating state), rate limits, authorization needs, or output nature (return format, what analysis includes). This is a significant gap for a tool that performs computation.

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 short (one sentence plus parameter list and example) but somewhat redundant: the example echoes the parameter listing. It is not formatted as a structured specification. Some critical information is omitted (behavior, output). Conciseness is achieved at the cost of clarity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not state what the analysis returns (e.g., move evaluations, best lines, scores). For a tool that 'runs analysis', the agent needs to know the type and granularity of output. The description leaves the agent to infer from the output schema, but context about the analysis purpose (e.g., depth, limited to recent games) is lacking.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining game_index (which recent game, default 0 is latest) and movetime_ms (time in milliseconds, default 500). The example reinforces usage. However, the explanations are brief and lack format constraints (e.g., range for movetime_ms).

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 verb 'Run engine analysis' and resource 'recent games', with a specific indexing scheme (0 = latest). It distinguishes from siblings like chess_analyze_pgn (PGN input) and chess_analyze_game_id (arbitrary game ID) but does not explicitly state that this tool is limited to the user's own recent 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not compare with sibling tools like chess_analyze_game_id or chess_analyze_pgn, nor does it suggest prerequisites (e.g., must have played recent games). The example only shows parameter values, not usage context.

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