get_position_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool queries 11.7M+ indexed games and returns statistics, implying a read-only behavior. However, it does not specify data freshness, rate limits, or any other constraints, though the behavioral traits are reasonably clear for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core value proposition. The example is efficient and adds concreteness without waste. 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?

Given the tool is a simple query with no output schema, the description adequately explains return types (game counts, win percentages, top continuations) and the data source (11.7M+ games). It covers all needed context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 description coverage is 100% (fen and limit are described). The description adds minimal extra meaning: the example clarifies that 'limit' controls number of top continuations, and 'fen' is position identifier. This meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides move statistics (game counts, win percentages, top continuations) from a large database of games for a given position. The example question concretely illustrates the purpose and differentiates from siblings like 'analyse' which is presumably for engine analysis.

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?

Description implies the tool is for statistical queries from a large game database, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'analyse' or provide exclusion criteria. The context signals suggest a read-only query, but no direct usage guidance is given.

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