chess_player_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or any side effects. The description is a single sentence that does not reveal any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 very short (one sentence plus an example), which is concise but not well-structured. It lacks any breakdown of purpose, usage, or behavior. It earns its place in terms of brevity, but the lack of structure makes it less helpful for an agent.

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 has no parameters but an output schema exists, the description should clarify the user context (e.g., authenticated user or requires a username from the environment). It does not mention any prerequisites or the scope of the profile. The description is incomplete for an agent to reliably use the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'profile and ratings summary,' which is slightly more descriptive than just 'stats.' The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 'Get your Chess.com profile and ratings summary,' which specifies a verb and resource. The word 'your' implies it returns the authenticated user's profile, differentiating it from sibling tools like chess_recent_matches that require a username parameter. However, it does not explicitly state whose profile is fetched, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like chess_recent_matches and chess_analyze_* are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without support.

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