get_tablebase_diagnostics

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 usefully discloses the caveat that the report may be incomplete ('without claiming complete coverage'), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about read-only status, cost, or what a partial result implies for the caller.

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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the completeness caveat attached economically. No filler.

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 zero parameters and an output schema already covering the return shape, the description needs only to convey intent and scope, which it does. The only shortfall is the absence of any guidance on when to reach for this versus sibling tablebase tools.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed given 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?

The description states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('configured tablebase directories and WDL/DTZ file pairing'), which is concrete and distinguishable from the sibling get_tablebase_result (which returns a result rather than checks configuration). The scope is clear even without naming the sibling it contrasts with.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as get_tablebase_result or evaluate_endgame. The diagnostic intent ('diagnostics') is implied, but an agent cannot tell from the text when this should be preferred over the other tablebase tools.

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