diagnose_weaknesses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs engine analysis over many games, is computationally heavy, and suggests limiting max_games. It lists output components. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but the behavioral impact (heavy) is clearly conveyed.

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 very concise at three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then details the rich output, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (accuracy, per-phase breakdown, tactical blind spots with FENs, etc.) adequately. It doesn't specify format or error conditions, but for a coach tool, the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses max_games ('keep max_games modest') but does not explain username, source, depth, or speed. Users are left to infer these from the tool name and common sense, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 diagnoses recurring weaknesses from recent games, with specific outputs (accuracy, per-phase, blind spots, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_game (single game) and fetch_recent_games (just fetch) by emphasizing the aggregation over multiple games.

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 provides guidance on when to use ('core coach tool') and a practical constraint ('keep max_games modest for fast turnaround'). It implies this is heavier than other tools, so alternatives like analyze_game are better for single-game analysis, though not explicitly stated.

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