review_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does disclose determinism and the absence of prose output, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about the tool being compute/engine-heavy (implied by multipv and node budgets) or about expected latency, so key behavioral traits remain hidden.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with the no-prose caveat placed at the end. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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. But for a 6-parameter analysis tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the entire configuration surface and any cost/latency expectation unexplained.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Opaque tuning knobs like multipv, initial_nodes, critical_nodes, and critical_loss_cp are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Analyze and classify a complete PGN') and characterizes the output as deterministic review labels with per-player summaries, which separates it from prose-generating lesson tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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 clause 'No prose coaching is generated' implicitly routes the agent away from coaching/tutor tools toward this one for structured review, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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