get_opening_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'source-attributed' and 'transpositions', which hints at behavior, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output contains beyond a generic 'moves' return, whether pagination applies (offset parameter exists), or any rate or permission constraints.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key modifiers. It could be slightly more structured to separate conditions or return behavior, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain required FEN syntax, the offset/pagination behavior, or when this tool is preferable to alternatives like find_opening or inspect_position. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 should compensate. It implies the position is specified (presumably via 'fen'), but does not explain the required FEN format or the purpose of the 'offset' parameter. Baseline is 3 when schema descriptions are high, but here the low coverage means the description falls short; however, it does at least convey what the queried entity is.

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 ('Get') and resource ('corpus moves at a position'), and adds distinguishing details like 'source-attributed' and 'including transpositions'. However, it is not sharply differentiated from siblings such as find_opening, evaluate_position, or inspect_position, which also operate on positions. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 alternatives. With many sibling tools that analyze, inspect, or find openings, an agent has no indication of which context should select get_opening_position. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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