lichess_read

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does establish the read-only nature implicitly ('Read') and reveals the return shape — text plus numbered buttons, links and fields — but says nothing about whether reading mutates or scrolls anything, whether the numbering is stable across calls, or whether a page must be open first.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first and the content list follows as a colon clause. It is efficient, though slightly compressed given the behavioral gaps.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), so a short description is defensible. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description should explain how the numbered elements tie into the click/type siblings and whether a page must be opened first — a meaningful gap for a browser-inspection primitive.

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 single optional parameter 'element' has full schema description coverage ('Read only inside this element'), so the schema does the work. The description mentions reading 'the current Lichess page' in general and never addresses the scoping parameter, adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies for 100% coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the current Lichess page') and enumerates what comes back: text, numbered buttons, links and fields. That cleanly separates it from action-oriented siblings like lichess_click, lichess_type, and lichess_open, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. It never says to call this first to discover the numbered elements that lichess_click/lichess_type presumably need, nor how it relates to lichess_status or lichess_guide, so the agent must infer the read-then-act workflow.

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