Rank Chess Moves by Intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating it RANKS but does NOT choose a move, and clarifies the meaning of each intent, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 a single paragraph but packs essential information: purpose, relationship to sibling, behavioral caveat, and intent definitions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details intents. Slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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 has 10 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema. The description explains the core intent parameter and the tool's role, but does not cover other parameters like elo, sf_depth, or lichess_db. However, the output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description is adequate for a complex tool but could mention how other parameters affect ranking.

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 explains the 'intent' parameter in detail with definitions for each enum value, which is critical. However, other parameters like elo, sf_depth, lichess_db, etc., are not explained in the description, relying on the schema's names and defaults. Given the complexity, the description covers the most important parameter but leaves others to inference.

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 it is a convenience layer over move_candidates that ranks candidates for a strategic intent. It explicitly distinguishes itself from move_candidates and clarifies it does not choose a move, which differentiates it from siblings like game_play_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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as a ranking layer over move_candidates, and explicitly warns not to map user skill mechanically to an intent. It also lists all intents with definitions, giving clear context for selection.

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