inspect_position

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. It usefully discloses that the tool performs no engine analysis, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, side effects, or what 'inspect' entails beyond that.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and the key constraint.

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 simple one-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the input type, and the no-engine-analysis scope. It could be improved by clarifying what 'inspect' returns, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 the single 'fen' parameter. It identifies the parameter as a 'FEN position,' which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema name, but gives no format details or examples. This partially compensates but leaves a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('FEN position'), and distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by saying 'without engine analysis.' However, 'inspect' remains somewhat vague about what aspects of the position are examined, so it falls short of the most precise 5-level clarity.

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?

The phrase 'without engine analysis' implies when this tool is appropriate compared to engine-based siblings like evaluate_position or analyze_position, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is only implied, not fully guided.

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