evaluate_endgame

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints at fallback behavior (using engine analysis when tablebase evidence is unavailable), but says nothing about permissions, safety, rate limits, or output characteristics.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The most critical information (what the tool actually does) is not front-loaded or clearly stated.

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?

For an endgame evaluation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too sparse. It omits prerequisites, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools, leaving major gaps for an agent.

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 does not mention the sole 'fen' parameter at all. It provides no semantic meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 says to combine endgame features with tablebase evidence or engine analysis, but it never states that the tool evaluates an endgame position or what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like evaluate_position, analyze_position, or get_tablebase_result.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many other evaluation tools. The mention of fallback to engine analysis is internal behavior, not a usage condition.

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