moves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the scoring formula (wins+1)/(tries+2), the retirement rule (5 straight losses), and the exception that locale_prefix/listing_root are ranked and never retired. It omits auth/permission requirements and any notion of what a mutation returns or whether it is reversible.

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?

Extremely dense but front-loaded: the registry purpose and scoring rule come first, then action syntax, then kind/scope vocabularies. The terse pseudo-grammar earns its space, though it reads as a compressed spec rather than prose.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers actions, parameter vocabularies, scoring, and lifecycle rules well. It does not describe the shape of list results or what propose returns (e.g. a new id), which an agent might need when chaining calls.

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, and it largely does: it defines kind values with their spec shapes (url_rewrite {pattern, repl} with \1 group semantics, locale_prefix, listing_root, listing_path, detail_suffix) and explains scope ('*', domain with www coverage, or host regex). Minor gaps remain for host/note as list filters.

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 names the resource (the moves register), its role (rewrite rules Scout tries when built-in moves fail), and enumerates the three concrete actions (list, propose, retire). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like scout, reach, or site_map without opening any schema.

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 gives the operating context (rules that fill in for failed built-in moves) and a clear directive: 'Propose only what you saw work.' Action syntax shows how to invoke each mode, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use exclusion is stated.

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