Analyze Chess Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's statement 'Does NOT mutate the game' adds no new information, but it does clarify the evaluation perspective and wdl format, and explains analysis levels without contradiction.

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?

All sentences are purposeful and detailed without redundancy, front-loading the core action and then explaining parameters and output semantics efficiently.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the tool's functionality, parameter choices, and output interpretation (cp, mate, wdl) completely, making it highly usable.

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%, but the description explains the meaning and effect of analysis_level, depth, and multipv, and clarifies that game_id is required to identify the position. This compensates fully for the lack of schema 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 the tool runs Stockfish on the current position and returns top engine lines, distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_evaluate and move_candidates.

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 explains how to specify analysis level or depth/multipv, and mentions it does not mutate the game, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons.

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