lichess_user_games

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

No annotations provided. Description only says 'Get games' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or limitations. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence), but too brief for a tool with 4 parameters. Lacks front-loading of key information; the user cannot determine how to use the parameters or what to expect.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, parameter usage, or how this tool differs from similar tools like chess_player_games.

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%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters (username, max, perfType, api_key). The description adds zero value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action (get games) and the resource (for a Lichess user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lichess_user (which gets user info) and chess_player_games (which is for chess.com).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., lichess_user for user info, or chess tools). Does not mention that an API key may be required or how to specify game type (perfType).

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