get_tablebase_result

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 does disclose two behavioral traits beyond the name — explicit availability reporting (tablebases may not be configured) and draw semantics — which is real value. It stops short of describing failure modes when Syzygy files are absent or the position is out of range.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the resource scope leads. It borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but the structure itself is clean.

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-value detail need not appear in prose, and the operation is low-complexity (one parameter). Still, the absence of any parameter guidance and of usage routing leaves the definition thin for a tool the agent must call with a correctly formatted FEN.

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 single parameter (fen) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about its format or expectations. Since FEN is a standard but easily malformed input, this leaves the agent without guidance on valid values.

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 names a resource (Syzygy WDL/DTZ tablebases) and a verb (probe), so the general purpose is recoverable. However, "probe configured local Syzygy WDL and DTZ" is jargon-heavy and does not clearly state that it returns the tablebase evaluation for a given position, nor does it distinguish itself from the sibling get_tablebase_diagnostics.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., get_tablebase_diagnostics or evaluate_endgame). The agent must infer usage 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.