recommend_drills

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs diagnose_weaknesses internally, returns drill positions with specific details (FEN, side, engine move), and orders by weaknesses. It doesn't mention read-only nature or potential side effects, but the behavior is mostly transparent.

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 two sentences long, very concise with no fluff. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second details the behavior. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain parameter meanings, error conditions, prerequisites, or the output format beyond a brief mention. This leaves an agent underinformed for proper invocation.

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%, and the description provides no explanations for any of the 6 parameters. The titles and defaults are insufficient for an agent to understand the meaning and constraints of parameters like source, max_games, depth, or num_drills.

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 that it builds a personalised drill set from the player's own mistakes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like diagnose_weaknesses which only analyze weaknesses. It specifies the source (blunders) and output format (FEN, side to move, engine move).

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 implies when to use (to generate drills from mistakes) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool comparisons. The mention of 'optional Lichess daily puzzle' gives some context, but lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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