analyse

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: uses Stockfish, defaults (2s think time, top-3 lines), score interpretation (centipawns from side-to-move POV, positive=advantage or mate distance), and PV notation (UCI). It is largely transparent, though does not explicitly state it is read-only—this is clear from context.

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?

Two concise sentences: first explains purpose and output, second adds defaults and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and well-front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains output format and defaults. It covers the essential context for effective use, though it omits error conditions or rate limits—acceptable for a simple tool with 3 parameters and no nested objects.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining score interpretation, default values for multipv and movetime, and that PV moves are in UCI notation. This enriches the semantics beyond the schema.

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 performs a Short Stockfish evaluation and returns top-N candidate moves with scores and principal variations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_position_stats and get_player_preparation by noting the difference between engine evaluation and human game frequency.

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 when to use this tool (sanity-check candidate lines from other tools) and contrasts it with alternatives, stating 'human game frequency tells you what people play, engine evaluation tells you what's actually good.'

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