get_legal_moves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that results come back in SAN and UCI. It omits how game_id resolves when null (defaults to the current game?), what happens with no active game, error behavior, and whether the list is ordered or paginated. Read-only intent is only weakly implied by 'List.'

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the resource and output formats are stated up front. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it leaves the game_id defaulting behavior and the effect of 'verbose' entirely unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 neither of the two parameters is mentioned in the description. 'game_id' (nullable, default null) and 'verbose' (boolean, default false) are entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every legal move') and scopes it to 'the current position,' which naturally separates it from get_move_history and get_evaluation. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear rather than distinguishing-by-name.

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 purpose implies usage (query moves before calling make_move), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Nothing warns whether this requires an active game or what to do instead if no game exists.

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