lichess_import_pgn

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 discloses that PGN is parsed through a Stockfish pipeline, returns per-move evaluation and classification, and stores results in L2 Resources for later retrieval. This gives good insight into behavior without contradictions. It does not mention side effects like rate limits or authentication, but for a read-like import, this is acceptable.

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 concise: 6 sentences plus a bullet list. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, technical detail, use cases, and parameter explanation. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage guidelines well. It explains what results are returned (evaluation, classification, phase detection) and storage mechanism. However, it lacks details on how to retrieve the stored results or the exact format of the analysis, which would aid completeness.

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%, but the description adds full parameter details via an Args block: pgn (full PGN string), color (white/black, default white), depth (integer range 8-24, default 14), game_id (optional, auto-detected from PGN Site header). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone, providing defaults, ranges, and usage context.

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 begins with a clear action: 'Import and analyze a chess game from a PGN string.' It specifies the verb (import/analyze), resource (chess game), and input format (PGN string). The tool is distinct from siblings like lichess_fetch_games, which fetches from lichess, and lichess_match_patterns, which compares patterns. The resource scope is well-defined.

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 lists four specific use cases: analyze your own games, import GM games, analyze opponent games, and build a custom library. It also references sibling tool lichess_match_patterns for comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for different scenarios, missing some guidance.

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