get_player_archives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes a read-only listing operation with no destructive side effects, which is reassuring. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., a list of archive URLs) or any edge cases like players with no game history. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 sentence with a clear verb and object, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero wasted information; it is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately communicates its purpose. However, since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the return value (e.g., list of monthly archive URLs) would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for correct usage.

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?

The input schema already describes the single parameter 'username' with a pattern and description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'monthly game archives available for a Chess.com player.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_games (which retrieves actual game data) and get_player_monthly_pgn (which downloads a PGN file).

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it does not say to use this tool first to obtain archive URLs before calling get_player_games or get_player_monthly_pgn. Usage is implied from the context but not spelled out.

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