ttt_move

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral aspects: it checks turn order, cell validity, occupancy, and game end. While it doesn't specify the return value or error behavior, the core validation logic is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides essential details without any extraneous information.

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 with no output schema, the description covers board format and validation rules. It could mention the return type or success/failure indication, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand and use the 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for all three parameters: it explains the board string format (X, O, .), cell indexing (1-9), and player enum values. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 judges a proposed tic-tac-toe move, specifies the board format, and lists the checks performed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ttt_options (which lists valid moves) and turn_plan (strategy) by focusing on validation of a single move.

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 the tool is for validating a specific move but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context is given.

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