motif_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important behavioral quirks: a move can carry several tags so shares can exceed 100%, untagged_share_pct covers unexplained moves, min_class values are 'mistake' or 'blunder', and pending_moves flags untagged games. It does not state that this is a read-only operation or discuss cost/latency, so the safety profile is only implied by the word 'report'.

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 content is dense but front-loaded, leading with what the report counts and following with caveats about overlapping tags and untagged moves. Every sentence contributes; the only mild inefficiency is the slightly run-on opening clause.

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 7-parameter report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the output shape reasonably well but leaves several filters (last_n, time_class, username) undocumented. An agent can understand the report's content but cannot confidently map all parameters.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines min_class and implies domains for phase, colour and pace (hasty/considered/short of time), and n_examples is hinted at by 'newest and costliest examples of each', but username, last_n and time_class are never explained, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 states specifically what the report contains: counts, share and average win-chance loss per motif tag, split by phase, pace and colour, plus newest and costliest examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like weakness_report or tag_motifs, though it describes output content rather than opening with a clean verb+resource sentence.

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?

It names one alternative/prerequisite explicitly: pending_moves counts costly moves in games not tagged yet and 'run tag_motifs' to tag them. That is useful routing, but there's no guidance on when this report is preferred over weakness_report, analyze_games, or worst_moments, and no exclusions.

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