analyze_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output: per-move classification, win% before/after, centipawn loss, engine's preferred move, tactical-motif tags, per-side accuracy/ACPL, per-phase breakdown, and worst moments with FENs. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, which are safe to assume absent.

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 a single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then details, then usage. It is informative but not overly verbose. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 complexity of full game analysis, the description covers the main outputs comprehensively. No output schema exists, so the description must detail return values, which it does. It does not mention error handling or PGN format requirements.

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 description must compensate. It explains pgn (required) and user_color (to focus reporting). However, depth and max_plies are not described beyond default values. Partial compensation.

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 analyzes a full game from PGN, providing per-move classification with Korean labels, win% changes, centipawn loss, engine moves, tactical motifs, and a summary with accuracy/ACPL and per-phase breakdown. This differentiates it from siblings like analyze_position (likely single position) and diagnose_weaknesses (post-analysis).

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 that setting user_color focuses reporting on one player. It implies the tool is for analyzing a full game, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, the sibling context provides differentiation.

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