analyze_pawn_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says what is returned but not how the analysis is performed, whether it's purely factual (as 'factual' implies), what permissions or game state it requires, or whether it works on any FEN. The single 'factual' adjective is the only qualifier, and it is vague.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the return scope precisely: pawn structure types (isolated, doubled, passed) and both sides. No filler, no repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, so it is reasonably complete for that dimension. However, given no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent lacks context on when this tool is preferable to other position-analysis tools available in the sibling set.

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 schema provides only a parameter name ('fen') with no description. The description does not explain what a FEN is or how the analysis depends on it, and with only one parameter the baseline is 4, but since the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('isolated, doubled, and passed-pawn geometry for both sides'), clearly distinguishing it from generic position analyzers like analyze_position or evaluate_position. It's a focused, well-scoped purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative or contrast with overlapping tools like inspect_position, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other analysis tools such as analyze_position, inspect_position, or evaluate_endgame. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer the use case (pawn-structure-specific analysis). No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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