Measures how often a chess player saved a clearly worse position by winning or drawing, revealing resilience patterns to target coaching.
How often the player saved (won or drew) a game after a clearly worse position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | ||
| time_class | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only precomputed lookup or an expensive on-demand computation, what the result looks like, or whether it requires prior game analysis. Only the semantic definition of the metric is 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?
A single tight sentence with zero padding, and the definition is front-loaded. But it is a fragment that omits the operative framing (a report for a given player), so brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than being purely efficient.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description must do more. It never explains return shape, prerequisites, or the time_class filter, leaving the agent with a metric definition but insufficient guidance to invoke the tool correctly.
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% for two parameters. The description's word 'player' weakly implies the username scope, but time_class (default null, anyOf string/null) is never addressed, so an agent cannot tell what values it accepts or how it filters the report.
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 sentence defines the metric concretely — wins/draws from a clearly worse position — which adds real meaning beyond the name 'resilience_report'. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never states that this produces a per-player report for a supplied username, nor distinguishes it from siblings like tilt_report or conversion_report.
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 indication of when to call this versus the many adjacent reports (weakness_report, tilt_report, conversion_report, peer_comparison). No prerequisites are mentioned, even though siblings like analyze_games and analysis_status suggest analysis may need to exist first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.