Generate Chess Move Candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that moverCp is from the mover's perspective and that the tool merges three distinct evaluation sources, which goes beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary role, and every sentence adds meaningful context: what the tool does, the moverCp perspective, and when to use it. There is no redundancy or filler.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the core selection context well. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools like move_candidates_by_intent, but the 'primary' framing mitigates this gap.

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 does not explain any of the nine input parameters such as elo, sf_depth, lichess_ratings, or analysis_level. It adds meaning to the output metrics but fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 this is the primary move-selection tool and that it combines Stockfish evaluation, Maia3 human probability, and Lichess statistics into a unified candidate list. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_evaluate or move_candidates_by_intent.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool before choosing a move, which is strong usage guidance. However, it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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