list_legal_moves

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 that moves are returned in SAN and UCI notation, but omits ordering, count, and behavior on invalid FEN input, and says nothing about the safety profile of a read operation.

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 key input and output details front-loaded. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still notes the notation formats. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, missing only failure-mode behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'fen' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only implies the parameter is a FEN string, adding marginal meaning without explaining format specifics or validity requirements.

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 (list) and resource (legal moves) plus the input (FEN position) and output notations (SAN and UCI). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like evaluate_move or get_repertoire_move, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 description says what it does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as evaluate_position, inspect_position, or get_repertoire_move. Usage must be inferred from the name and FEN input alone.

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