validate_move_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the return value (True/False) and the verb 'validates' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the board state is unchanged, which could be ambiguous given sibling tools that perform moves.

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 two short, focused sentences. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure with no filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 validation tool, the description covers the input format and return value. It does not explicitly mention that validity is relative to the current board state, but 'for the board' implies this. With a clear output schema presumably present, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds essential meaning to the 'move' parameter by specifying UCI format, which is not present in the schema. It also clarifies the return semantics. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('a move for the board'). It is distinct from sibling tools like make_move_tool because it explicitly focuses on validation rather than execution.

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 implies usage for checking move validity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this before make_move_tool'). No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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