tag_motifs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that Stockfish is only consulted for a ply without a stored line, once, at a fixed depth, and that engine_searches reports how many such calls occurred - key cost/behavior information. It does not say whether tagging persists/overwrites prior tags or is idempotent, which a mutation-style tool should clarify.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the full tag vocabulary (necessary since the schema has no enum), then the iteration semantics, then the engine-cost caveat. Dense but every sentence contributes; only the long enumeration makes it heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description proactively names two response fields (motif_pending, engine_searches) plus the termination condition. The remaining gap is parameter documentation for a 3-param tool with zero schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it never explains username, batch_size, or max_seconds explicitly. 'In batches' hints at batch_size and engine cost hints at max_seconds, but an agent must guess that max_seconds is a time budget for the call and what units/limits apply.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: tagging the costly moves of analysed games with one of ten named error categories, and it names sibling-adjacent concepts (stored analysis, Stockfish fallback) that separate it from analyze_games and motif_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?

Gives operational guidance for repeated invocation ('Newest games first, in batches; call again until motif_pending is 0') and clarifies it reads stored analysis rather than recomputing, but never states the prerequisite (games must already be analysed by analyze_games) or when to prefer motif_report instead.

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