chess_last_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the purpose but discloses no behavioral traits such as required authentication, side effects, caching, or data recency. For a read-only tool, the lack of transparency is moderate; the description does not confirm safety or scope beyond the basic function.

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: two short sentences, including a functional example. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what 'details' encompass or how 'most recent finished game' is determined (e.g., by date, by time control). The sibling tools hint at potential overlap, and the description lacks contextual cues to differentiate further. The example helps but does not fully close the gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by showing an example call with empty parentheses, confirming the parameterless nature. No further clarification is needed, as the schema already exhaustively defines the input.

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 action ('Show details') and the specific resource ('your most recent finished game'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'chess_recent_matches' (which likely lists multiple matches) and 'chess_analyze_recent_game' (which implies analysis, not just details). The example reinforces the zero-parameter call.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'chess_recent_matches' or 'chess_analyze_recent_game'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conditions for use. It provides merely an example, which hints at usage but lacks comparative context.

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