chess_recent_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List your most recent games' and provides a parameter example, but omits details such as authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or what happens when no games exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a parameter description, and a usage example. Every part is direct and useful. No wasted words, and the structure front-loads the core action.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about whose recent games are listed (implicitly the authenticated user) and fails to differentiate from the sibling 'chess_player_stats' which also lists recent games. The tool is simple, but the description could be more complete to avoid ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It effectively clarifies the 'limit' parameter with 'Number of games to list (default 5)', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default. The example reinforces usage. This is adequate for a single parameter.

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 'List your most recent games,' identifying the verb (list) and resource (games). It distinguishes from sibling 'chess_last_match' (single game) but does not specify that the games belong to the authenticated user, leaving room for confusion with 'chess_player_stats'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'chess_last_match' or 'chess_player_stats'. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or scenarios where an alternative would be better, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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