evaluate_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that scores are White-relative, an important interpretation detail, but says nothing about permissions, cost/rate limits, engine requirements, or side effects for what is presumably a read-only analysis call.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every clause conveys something useful.

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 a 4-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, two sentences are insufficient. Missing: parameter formats, when to prefer this over sibling evaluators, and any behavioral context (auth, engine cost). The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It hints at the 'move' parameter ('a legal move') and obliquely at 'history' ('before and after'), but leaves 'fen', the move notation format, and the 'profile' parameter (default 'quick') completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (a legal move against engine analysis before and after it), which distinguishes it from position-level siblings like evaluate_position. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (compare_candidate_moves, assess_candidate_move) explicitly.

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 no when-to-use guidance or conditions for choosing this tool over evaluate_position, compare_candidate_moves, or assess_candidate_move. The pre/post framing implies a use case but is not spelled out as routing advice.

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