chess_puzzles_random

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as result caching, whether repeated calls return same puzzle, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a retrieval tool, even minimal behavior expectations are missing.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for a random puzzle retrieval. However, it could include additional context such as the source of puzzles (e.g., 'daily puzzle' vs. any puzzle) or whether it returns a FEN string or image. It is adequate but lacks completeness.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since none to cover). Per rubric, 0 parameters base score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 action 'Get', the resource 'random chess puzzle', and the source 'Chess.com'. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like chess_leaderboards, chess_player, etc., which have different purposes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chess_puzzle_daily (from Lichess) or other chess tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage.

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