visualize_board_tool

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

The description reveals the output format (ASCII string) and that it displays the board, but it does not explicitly state the tool has no side effects or does not modify the game state. Since annotations are absent, this would have been useful, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 short and front-loaded with the core function, but includes a slightly redundant second sentence ('Shows the board...') and a lengthy usage instruction. It's still concise overall, though it could be tightened.

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 simplicity (no params, no annotations, no complex output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and return value adequately. Minor gaps include missing prerequisites (like an active game), but these are not critical for a board visualization 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 the description notes 'Args: None.' With no schema to elaborate, the baseline for 0-param tools is 4; the description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed.

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 returns an ASCII representation of the current board, with specific details about pieces, ranks, and files. This distinguishes it from siblings like make_move_tool or evaluate_board_tool, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool after moves and to include the ASCII art in the response to the user. It also clarifies not to leave the response without the visualization, providing strong when-to-use guidance.

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