tutor_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the tool returns the resulting position plus Stockfish's best replies (engine-backed analysis). It says nothing about cost, latency, or how nodes/multipv affect the depth of analysis, which matters for an engine call.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return behavior. No wasted words and the scope is immediately clear.

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 the return-value sentence is somewhat redundant but harmless. The remaining gap is the undocumented engine parameters (nodes, multipv) and the absence of sibling disambiguation, which leaves the definition only marginally sufficient for a 4-parameter analysis tool.

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 4 parameters. The description mentions SAN/UCI move format, which lightly informs the 'move' parameter, but 'nodes' and 'multipv' are engine-tuning parameters left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 gives a clear verb+resource: 'Assess a proposed legal SAN or UCI move,' and adds the tutoring framing and engine-backed output. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like evaluate_move or assess_candidate_move, so an agent cannot confidently route between them from the description alone.

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?

'for move-by-move tutoring' implies a teaching context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives such as evaluate_move or assess_candidate_move. Usage is only weakly implied.

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