lichess_opening_explorer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it looks up a position, without mentioning read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, return structure, or side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a bullet list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently explains both parameters. There is no wasteful or redundant text.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and parameter meanings adequately. However, it omits any indication of return values (e.g., move statistics, games count) or error handling (e.g., invalid FEN). It is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'fen' parameter as a FEN string and the 'source' parameter as a choice between 'lichess' and 'masters', including the default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles, though format details for FEN could be added.

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 clearly states the tool looks up a position in the Lichess Opening Explorer, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like lichess_fetch_games or lichess_player_profile, which serve different purposes.

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 explains the basic functionality and the parameters, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear given the name and siblings, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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