analyze_chessboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unreliable OCR is rejected by default, which explains a key precondition. It still does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, what happens to the rejected image, or the exact output shape and analysis behavior beyond Stockfish being used.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no obvious filler. The first sentence states the core action and the last two add important constraints efficiently. It could be slightly more structured around when to use it versus alternatives, but it is appropriately sized.

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 tool is moderately complex: image input, Stockfish analysis, seven parameters, and an output schema. The description covers the high-level pipeline and the reliable-OCR default, which are the most important safety behaviors. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the zero parameter documentation and lack of alternative guidance leave clear 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the seven parameters. Important semantics for nodes, multipv, orientation, side_to_move, allow_unreliable, and infer_castling_rights are left entirely undocumented. The only implied parameter relationship is that allow_unreliable toggles the rejection behavior, which is too thin for a tool with this many knobs.

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 clear two-part verb+resource: recognize a chessboard image and analyze it with Stockfish. This distinguishes it from recognize_chessboard (recognition only) and analyze_position (analysis of a known position), because it combines both steps. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those closest siblings.

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 gives an implied usage context: axis-aligned screenshots and diagrams. It does not point to alternatives or say when the tool should be avoided, such as for non-axis-aligned photos or when only recognition/analysis is already available. This is enough to infer the intended input class but not a full usage policy.

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