evaluate_board_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output sign convention (positive favors white, negative favors black), return type (string), and error behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the evaluation nature implies a read-only 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the return statement 'Returns a string with the score, or an error message if evaluation fails' is repeated in both the intro and the Returns section, causing slight redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential information: what it does, output semantics, and error handling. It does not mention how evaluation is performed or any prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward evaluation 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 no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Args: None'. This aligns with the empty input schema, and there is no additional parameter meaning needed beyond the schema coverage of 100%.

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 evaluates the board and returns a score in centipawns, with specific verb ('evaluates'), resource ('board'), and output meaning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like make_move_tool or get_state_tool, which serve different functions.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('Evaluates the board') but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without providing decision context.

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