chesscom_get_player_archives

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or response structure. Only states it lists URLs, which is minimal.

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?

Single, clear sentence with no redundant words. Front-loaded with key information. Efficient and well-structured.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the output type (archive URLs) and format (YYYY/MM). Minor omission: no mention of requirements like player existence or authentication.

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% with a clear description for username. The description adds context ('a player's monthly game history') but doesn't significantly extend beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies resource as 'YYYY/MM archive URLs' containing a player's monthly game history. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like chesscom_get_player or chesscom_get_player_stats which handle different aspects.

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?

Implied usage for fetching archive URLs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives are not mentioned, though the context is clear enough for basic use.

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