get_game_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the endpoint is 'unofficial' and 'unstable', which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explain possible failure modes, response behavior, or rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise: two sentences, with the first stating purpose and the second providing a crucial caveat. No fluff or repetitive content; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description gives the core purpose and an important stability warning. However, without an output schema, it does not explain the structure of 'live game data' or the generated PGN, nor does it address error handling. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 100%, with the gameId parameter already described as a 'Numeric Chess.com live game ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves 'live game data and generated PGN', with the name 'get_game_by_id' making the resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling list-oriented tools like get_player_games by focusing on a single live game, but the description itself does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives.

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 some usage context: it is for live game data and warns to use it sparingly due to instability. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclude certain cases (e.g., archived games), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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