recognize_chessboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that processing happens locally (no upload), that confidence/reliable/plausible style fields are returned, and warns about unreliable outputs. It omits whether the operation is read-only/idempotent or what happens on failure, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core conversion and its scope, followed by input formats and the reliability caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 values need not be explained, and the description helpfully warns about the confidence/reliability semantics anyway. It is complete for the primary flow but leaves three of four parameters undescribed, which is the main gap.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It richly documents the required 'image' param (local path, file URL, raw base64, base64 data URL) but says nothing about orientation, side_to_move, or infer_castling_rights, leaving three params to enum/default inference alone.

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 precise verb+resource ('Convert an axis-aligned 2D chessboard screenshot or book diagram to FEN') and adds a distinguishing scope qualifier ('locally'), letting an agent separate it from siblings like analyze_chessboard or inspect_position without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear input-context guidance (the kinds of images accepted: screenshot or book diagram) and an explicit caution on when NOT to trust the result ('do not silently trust... reliable or plausible field is false'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or the condition that routes to analysis tools, so it is not a full 5.

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