Get Chess Game State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds value by specifying the content of the response (fields) and the optional include_ascii behavior, but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances like response format or error conditions beyond what annotations already imply. With strong annotations, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and fields, followed by an optional usage hint. Every sentence carries value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema (which explains return structure) and the simple parameter set, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It even lists the key fields for quick understanding and provides a usage example for the optional parameter. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 include_ascii (setting it true provides a board diagram) but leaves game_id implicit, though the name suggests it identifies the game. It adds some meaning for include_ascii, but could have explicitly stated game_id's purpose. Since game_id is evident from context, this partially compensates.

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 returns the authoritative game state and enumerates specific fields (FEN, turn, revision, flags, move history, etc.). It differentiates itself from siblings like game_pgn (which likely returns a different format) by focusing on the internal state, and explicitly suggests using it instead of remembering the board.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool instead of relying on memory, giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the ton of 'authoritative state' and scope differentiate it from related tools. No exclusions are stated, but the implied usage is clear.

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