weakness_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are based on analysed games and can be scoped by time class and recency, but it does not state prerequisites such as whether games must first be analysed or synced, whether there are minimum sample requirements, or what happens when no analysed games match the filters.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with the report's purpose and followed by the optional scoping parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The description gives enough information to understand what the report covers and how to scope it. However, for a report tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits prerequisites, expected return structure, and guidance on how this report relates to closely overlapping siblings, leaving some contextual gaps.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for time_class by giving bullet/blitz/rapid examples and for last_n by explaining that it limits to the most recent N analysed games. The username parameter is self-evident and needs no further explanation.

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 clearly states the report's purpose: showing where a player loses most by game phase, colour, time control, and how often winning positions are thrown away. It is specific enough to distinguish the report from many siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain how it differs from closely related reports like conversion_report or resilience_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?

The opening phrase implies the use case: diagnosing where a player loses most. The second sentence explains optional scoping by time class and recent analysed games, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this report versus sibling reports or when not to use it.

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