get_repertoire_move

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, and it says almost nothing beyond 'get' implying a read. It never explains what 'personal' means, whose repertoire is consulted, whether an empty position returns an error, or what the offset is for (pagination?).

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. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

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?

The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an ambiguous offset argument, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in a crowded repertoire-related toolset.

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 compensate for both parameters. 'At a position' loosely implies the fen input, but the offset parameter is left completely unexplained — is it pagination over matching moves, and what are its units? Two undocumented parameters at 0% coverage is a real gap.

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 ('Get personal repertoire moves') with a scoping qualifier ('at a position'). It clearly contrasts with the mutation sibling submit_repertoire_move, though it does not distinguish itself from get_due_repertoire_drill or the opening-lookup tools.

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, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite many related siblings (submit_repertoire_move, get_due_repertoire_drill, find_opening, get_opening_position). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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