ttt_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: it checks turn order, cell validity, occupancy, and game completion. However, it does not specify whether it modifies state, what the return value looks like (though an output schema exists), or how it handles invalid moves (e.g., return an error vs. false). This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, immediately front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: the first states what the tool does, the second specifies the board format and validation checks. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 schema's complexity (8 params, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core task well: it explains the board format, cell indexing, and validation checks. It does not detail optional policy-related parameters, but these are likely shared infrastructure. The tool's simple validation purpose is adequately described, and the output schema covers return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the core parameters. It explains that 'board' is a 9-character string of X, O, and '.' and that cells are 1-9 left-to-right/top-to-bottom, which fully describes the board and cell parameters. 'player' is defined via the enum in the schema. Optional parameters (request_id, table_policy, etc.) are not explained, but they appear to be standard cross-tool infrastructure and are likely already understood by the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Judge one proposed tic-tac-toe move.' It immediately clarifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like ttt_options by focusing on validating a single move rather than generating options or managing a game. The board format and validation checks are also clearly stated.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever a proposed tic-tac-toe move needs to be validated. It outlines the specific validation criteria (turn order, cell validity, occupancy, game-ended), which gives clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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