get_best_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'optionally at reduced strength' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., engine behavior, strength controls). It does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or internal mechanics beyond the basic pick action.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers the core action and optional reduced strength. However, it omits mention that the result is the best move from an engine, which would enhance completeness for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds only a hint about reduced strength (related to elo/skill_level) but no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Pick a move for the side to move, optionally at reduced strength' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Pick') and resource ('move for the side to move'). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_position or evaluate_position by focusing on selecting a move.

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 offers implied usage (when you need a move) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_position, nor does it provide guidance on when to use reduced strength or full strength. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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