sacrifice_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does contribute one genuinely useful trait: the ~10:1 false-positive ratio, which tells the agent to treat results as leads, not conclusions. It omits whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires prior analysis, how much of the game history is scanned, and what the ordering/volume of results looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the reliability caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and precision only. Missing are the prerequisites (synced/analyzed games), what the filters do, and any notion of result shape or count, leaving real gaps before an agent can invoke it confidently.

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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them: n, last_n, time_class, and even username are undefined. At best 'over-reports ... candidates per real brilliant' vaguely implies the result set that n presumably bounds, but that is an inference the agent should not have to make.

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 a concrete finding: it surfaces moves that offer a piece up, and ties that to a known concept (chess.com 'brilliant'). An agent can tell this is a candidate-finding tool, though it never says it scans the calling user's analyzed games, so the resource scope has to be inferred from the username parameter.

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 statement of when to reach for this versus analyze_games, motif_report, missed_opportunities, or worst_moments, no prerequisites (does it need sync_games/analyze_games to have run first?), and no exclusions. The precision caveat hints at suitability but is a behavior note, not usage routing.

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