Estimate Human Chess Moves

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and determinism. The description adds crucial behavioral nuances: it clarifies that higher probability means more human-typical, and explicitly notes that this is not move quality, preventing misinterpretation. It does not contradict annotations, and adds context beyond what annotations provide, such as the meaning of the output values.

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—two sentences, no fluff. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the function and key input (Elo), and the second provides a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details.

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 is relatively simple (read-only, 1 required param) and has an output schema, so the description needn't detail the return structure. It covers the core usage and behavior (human-likeness, Elo conditioning, not-quality warning). The main gap is parameter semantics (covered separately), but overall the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions 'target Elo' (which maps to elo) but does not clarify top_n (how many moves returned), oppo_elo (opponent rating effect), or game_id (required, identifies position). The word 'distribution' might imply all moves, but top_n suggests a subset, creating ambiguity. This is inadequate for a 4-param tool with no schema descriptions.

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 Maia3 human-like move probability distribution for the current position, conditioned on target Elo. It explicitly distinguishes itself from move quality ('This is NOT move quality'), which differentiates it from siblings like move_evaluate or position_analyze. The verb 'Return' and specific resource 'Maia3...distribution' make the purpose precise.

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: when you need human-like probabilities for a given rating, and warns against confusing with move quality. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the 'NOT move quality' caveat curbs misuse. The 'conditioned on a target Elo' hints at the parameter, but no direct guidance on top_n or oppo_elo is given. So it provides clear context with a partial exclusion but lacks explicit alternative naming.

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