engine_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it returns info, implying a read-only operation. No mention of side effects, performance, or dependencies. Lacks detail on behavioral traits beyond basic retrieval.

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?

Single sentence with the main verb 'Return' front-loaded. No superfluous words. Perfectly concise and structured.

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 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential return values. Missing context about when to invoke (e.g., before other operations) is a minor gap, but overall sufficient for a simple info 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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the fields returned (name, author, configurable options), which is helpful. However, 'a few configurable options' is slightly vague but acceptable.

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 Stockfish engine's name, author, and configurable options, using a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'engine info'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_position, get_best_move) which focus on chess analysis rather than engine metadata.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the purpose is intuitive: use when needing engine metadata. The sibling tools are all chess operations, so usage context is implied but not stated.

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