my_results_from_position

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema: position matching ignores move counters and non-capturable en-passant squares, so transpositions count, and sample sizes are small. With no annotations, this is valuable context. It does not discuss return format or side effects, but an output schema exists, reducing the need for that.

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 three sentences: one core purpose sentence followed by two caveats. It is front-loaded with the main function and contains no filler or redundancy. Excellent structure.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers data scope (rated blitz games), position matching behavior, and sample-size caveats. It does not discuss error conditions or alternatives, but these are not essential here.

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 only parameter (fen) has no schema description, and the tool description does not explicitly define FEN or provide an example. It only refers to 'position' and 'transpositions', which indirectly implies the param's meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more directly, so the score is moderate.

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 returns the user's W/D/L record from a position across rated blitz games. It specifies a particular resource (the record) and scope (position, blitz games), distinguishing it from siblings like list_repertoires or search_games.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (querying the user's results from a position) and includes important interpretive guidance about small sample sizes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', so it falls short of the most explicit guidance.

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