get_cloud_eval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or potential side effects (e.g., if it triggers background processing). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place, but it's borderline minimal.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns complex evaluation data (e.g., chess scores, variations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't hint at the return type or structure, leaving the agent unprepared for the response. For a tool with 2 parameters and potential rich output, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (FEN and multiPv). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain FEN format or multiPv implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 'Get cloud evaluation for a position' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('cloud evaluation'), but it's vague about what 'cloud evaluation' entails (e.g., chess analysis, stockfish evaluation). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_ongoing_games', which are unrelated, but lacks specificity in its domain.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid FEN), exclusions, or related tools for similar tasks (e.g., if other analysis tools exist). The context is implied from the FEN parameter but not explicitly stated.

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