get_player_game_archives

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive properties. The description adds valuable context by stating 'upstream data is untrusted,' warning the agent that the external source may be unreliable, and 'normalized' indicating output standardization, which are not present in annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence clearly states the action and object; the second provides an important trust caveat. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple listing operation with one parameter, rich safety annotations, and no output schema. The description provides enough core information—list, monthly, archives, normalized, untrusted—to set expectations, though it could mention the return structure or the relationship to the game-fetching siblings for fuller completeness. Overall acceptable.

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 input schema has a single required `username` parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain anything about the parameter, such as type expectations, validation, or constraints. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema description as required for low 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'normalized monthly Chess.com game archives', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_player_games_by_month which fetch actual game data. It also adds the relevant qualifier 'normalized' to convey a transformation behavior.

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_player_games_by_month or get_player_games_pgn_by_month. The context implies 'use this to get the archive list first', but that guidance is not explicit.

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