chesscom: Get player archives

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds that the output is 'YYYY/MM archive URLs,' which is beyond structured fields. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, error handling) are disclosed.

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 sentence of 12 words with no redundancy. Every word is meaningful, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It names the resource (archive URLs) and format (YYYY/MM). Could be slightly more complete with an example, but adequate.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'username.' The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's 'Chess.com username.' Baseline 3 applies due to high coverage.

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 specifically states 'List the YYYY/MM archive URLs containing a player's monthly game history,' using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chesscom_get_player and chesscom_get_player_stats by targeting archive URLs.

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 implies use for retrieving archive URLs but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude. No alternatives or when-not guidance is provided, though context from sibling tools suggests it's for listing, not direct game access.

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