opening_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful sorting detail 'worst first', but says nothing about permissions, data prerequisites, whether games must be synced first, or how 'opening-phase quality' is computed.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the key subject (results and opening-phase quality) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its terseness is better addressed as a completeness gap than as a conciseness problem.

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?

This is a parameterized report tool with four inputs, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, so the description should do much more. One sentence cannot explain parameter meaning, data requirements, or what the report returns.

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 description never mentions any of the four parameters (username, last_n, min_games, time_class). It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the bare schema titles.

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 a specific report type: results and opening-phase quality, segmented by opening and colour, sorted worst first. This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like time_of_day_report or weakness_report, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weakness_report or motif_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-sentence description.

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