evaluate_position

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 hints that scores are White-relative and that evidence is immutable, but says nothing about cost, latency, permissions, whether the profile trades speed for depth, or how the optional move history affects the result. The output-facing hints overlap with the existing output schema.

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 with no filler, which is appropriately tight. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, but there is no wasted wording to trim.

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, return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits parameter meaning, sibling routing, and any behavioral profile for a compute-style evaluation tool. Given the dense cluster of similar chess-analysis siblings, one sentence is not enough for correct selection.

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 explain all three parameters and largely does not. It alludes to the optional move history (the 'moves' param), but leaves 'fen' unexplained and gives no indication of what the 'profile' values are or what 'quick' (the default) changes about the evaluation.

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 and resource (analyze/evaluate a position) and adds scope hints about White-relative scores and immutable evidence. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-synonymous siblings such as analyze_position, inspect_position, explain_position, and evaluate_move, leaving the agent to guess which position-scoring tool to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. In a namespace crowded with analyze_position, analyze_chessboard, inspect_position, and evaluate_move, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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