analyze

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: returns best move, evaluation, turn, optional best line; uses Stockfish; accepts FEN/PGN; and explains depth and movetime parameters. It does not mention destructive or auth concerns, but these are likely irrelevant.

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 two sentences in the first paragraph plus a usage note. It is front-loaded with the core action, every sentence adds value, and there is no waste.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description covers input formats, output items, and usage. It could mention evaluation format (centipawns or mate) but overall comprehensive for an agent.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining defaults (depth 18 plies), usage of movetime to override depth, and that position can be omitted for starting position. This enhances standalone schema descriptions.

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 analyzes a chess position with Stockfish and returns the best move, evaluation, and turn. It specifies input formats (FEN, PGN, or omitted for start position), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using this tool when the strongest move or evaluation is needed, and clarifies that separate setup/search is unnecessary, providing clear context for when to use it.

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