get_player_game_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the operation lists archives; it does not describe whether the result is a list of month strings, URLs, or objects, nor does it mention ordering, authentication, rate limits, or any other behavior. This is a minimal but not transparent definition.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and easy for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers the core purpose and is actionable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits important context such as the shape of the returned archive list and how the entries are formatted, leaving an agent to infer or discover those details at runtime.

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 was expected to compensate, but it does not explicitly explain the 'username' parameter. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory from its name and the description's 'for a player' context, making the lack of additional semantics only a minor gap.

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 verb ('Get a list') and the resource ('available monthly game archives for a player on Chess.com'), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_player_games_by_month, but the phrase 'monthly game archives' adequately conveys that this is about archive listings rather than game content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_player_games_by_month or download_player_games_pgn. The word 'available' weakly implies it is useful for discovering which months can be fetched, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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