Report exact local opening coverage by source, separating theoretical plans from practical statistics for chess preparation.
Report exact local opening coverage by source, keeping theoretical plans and practical statistics distinct.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | ||
| source_limit | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes | ||
| is_exhaustive_chess_coverage | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only report and adds useful context that theoretical plans and practical statistics are kept distinct in the output, but it never explicitly states read-only safety, permissions, or scope limits.
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 redundant phrasing. Every clause (exact, local, by source, theoretical vs practical) carries meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the schema/invocation side is trivial. However, the description omits when-to-use routing against the many sibling opening tools, leaving a meaningful gap for 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema.
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 ('Report') and resource ('local opening coverage by source'), which is reasonably distinct from siblings like get_opening_plans or find_opening. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself, and 'coverage' is left abstract, but an agent can infer this is a coverage-summary read tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The clause about keeping theoretical plans and practical statistics distinct hints at output content but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool over get_opening_plans, import_opening_statistics, or get_opening_position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.