get_evaluation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral trait — that no engine analysis or advice is included — which clarifies output character. But it says nothing about read-only safety (though implicit), error handling, or how null game_id resolves, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the scope constraint and then the concrete contents. Every clause earns its place and there is no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the enumerated field list plus the no-engine constraint covers the core. The missing piece is the meaning of the optional game_id, which matters for correct invocation even on a simple tool. Adequate but with a visible gap.

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 0% and the single game_id parameter is nullable with a default of null, meaning it is optional. The description says nothing about what game_id does or what happens when it is omitted (presumably the current game). With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 the resource (position evaluation) and enumerates exactly what it returns: material balance, legal move count, check state. The 'no engine, no advice' clause sets it apart from what an agent might assume a chess 'evaluation' tool does. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 phrase 'objective position facts only — no engine, no advice' implies the tool should be used when the agent wants raw positional facts rather than judgment or analysis. However, it never states when to pick this over get_board, get_status, or get_legal_moves, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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