ScoreIA Open Labyrinth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds substantial behavioral detail: it states the connection precondition, warns that Warden calls may take 5–9 seconds and fail closed at 18 seconds (requiring at least 20 seconds per call), and enforces rules like 'Never simulate,' 'No subagent,' and 'Always seal, including failure.' These are concrete operational traits beyond the schema. It does not define key terms like 'mutation' or 'seal,' but the disclosure is unusually rich for a tool with no annotations.

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 dense and front-loads the essential action and required parameters before moving into mode semantics and behavioral directives. Every sentence appears intentional, though the later terse rules ('Never simulate. No subagent. Always seal...') could be structured more clearly. It avoids fluff and repetition.

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 high-complexity tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers critical behavioral rules and the most important parameters, but leaves seven parameters undocumented and does not clarify the tool's precise effect relative to siblings. It is adequate to attempt a basic call but insufficient for full confident use.

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 only 27% (3 of 11 parameters), so the description must compensate, but it only explains a few parameters: product (lowercase slug or unknown), host (required), mode (adventure/tutorial/training/benchmark with brief semantics), and opponent (classic vs. warden, default behavior). Seven parameters—seed, origin, learn_from, model_claim, host_version, product_plan, and provider_claim—are not addressed at all, leaving significant gaps for an 11-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Enter') and a specific target ('ScoreIA Room II (Open Labyrinth)'), but it does not explain what 'entering' actually does—whether it creates a session, joins an existing one, or initializes state. Sibling tools like labyrinth_action and observe_labyrinth are not referenced to distinguish this tool's role, so the agent must infer its precise purpose from context.

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 provides some usage context, e.g. 'If you can call this tool, you are already connected' and mode-specific guidance for adventure, tutorial, training, and benchmark. It also says to choose opponent explicitly for adventure and to 'Always seal, including failure,' which implies a follow-up action. However, there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. labyrinth_action) and no clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful constraints: each call advances one step, moves are validated against the previous observation, repeated identical actions are discouraged, and pass has a consecutive-use limit. It stops short of describing what a successful action returns or what happens on an invalid move.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with every sentence adding a rule or next step. The phrasing is terse and a little fragmented, but there is no wasted 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?

The core action loop is covered, but with no output schema the tool does not describe return values, and the required challenge_handle plus expected_action_index are left unexplained. An agent would still have to infer how to obtain the handle and what the optional index means.

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%, and the description only clarifies direction by tying it to the last observed legal moves. The required challenge_handle and optional expected_action_index parameters are never explained, leaving the agent to guess their role from the schema alone.

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 identifies the action as taking a single step or passing using a direction from the last observation, so an agent can tell it is the labyrinth-movement tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, but 'ONE step only' and the direction/pass vocabulary make the purpose clear.

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 provides explicit procedural guidance: only one step per call, direction must come from the last observe's legal moves, observe again afterward, and pass at most twice in a row. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not name alternative tools or say when not to use this one.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds helpful output conventions ('Empty cell = not measured', 'Never a ranking') and implies a read-only view via 'Local board', but it does not explicitly state side effects, data source, or response behavior.

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 very concise and each fragment carries information. However, the telegraphic style and lack of a main verb make it slightly cryptic, keeping it from a top score.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only output documentation. It explains how to interpret empty cells and emphasizes that the result is not a ranking, but it does not specify what rows and columns represent or how open labyrinths actually appear in the result.

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 has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The absence of parameter details in the description is acceptable given the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 never explicitly says that this tool lists open labyrinths; the verb and resource are left to the tool name. 'Local board. Adventure stories vs benchmark Wilson rates' gives some content but remains vague about the actual operation and does not clearly differentiate it from siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus enter_open_labyrinth, labyrinth_action, observe_labyrinth, or seal_attempt. 'Never a ranking' is an interpretation caveat, not a usage direction or alternative-selection rule.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses the tool's partial nature, enumerates the fields returned, and warns about the lack of treasure/dragon coordinates. It also provides a behavioral rule for interpreting a stuck knight. This is transparent about limitations and state changes (though no side effects are mentioned, this is a read-like tool and the description implies observation, not mutation).

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 yet informative, packed into a few sentences. The key information (partial view, contents, exclusions) is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a diagnostic heuristic. Every sentence adds value, and there is minimal filler.

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 read-only observation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently specifies what the agent will receive (list of HUD fields) and what it won't (treasure/dragon coordinates). It also includes actionable behavioral guidance. Given the tool's simplicity and the fact that the parameter is a single handle, the description is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from clarifying the parameter's role in the labyrinth context.

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 for the parameter, but it does not mention the challenge_handle parameter at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, an agent might not know the expected format or relationship to the labyrinth challenge. The description provides no additional semantics beyond the schema field itself, and with zero coverage this is a notable 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?

Clearly states it's an observation tool for the labyrinth, explicitly lists the HUD fields returned (legal_moves, last_action, etc.) and what is excluded (treasure or dragon coordinates). The verb 'observe' and resource 'labyrinth' are specific, and the partial-view qualifier differentiates it from fuller-state tools, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit usage instruction: 'Read this after EVERY step' and a diagnostic heuristic ('If knight did not move, you hit a wall — pick another legal_moves'). This tells the agent when to call it and how to interpret results, effectively guiding usage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the instruction is strong and the sibling tools (enter, action, list, seal) have clearly different purposes.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only says 'Not a ranking' and 'Adventure ≠ benchmark,' which are vague negative statements. It does not explain what sealing does to state, whether repeated calls are safe, or what an agent should expect.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids boilerplate. However, 'Adventure ≠ benchmark' is cryptic and the five-seal list is disconnected from the schema, slightly reducing the efficiency of the wording.

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?

The description gives useful context about mandatory invocation and non-ranking behavior, but it omits parameter meanings, input-output behavior, and how this relates to the labyrinth sibling tools. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 explain the parameters, but it does not mention challenge_handle or expected_action_index at all. The 'five seals' list suggests possible semantic values that are not present in the schema, adding confusion instead of clarification.

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 a specific verb and resource ('seal the attempt into a card') and hints at five seal types, but 'seal' and 'card' remain unexplained metaphors that rely on domain knowledge. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like labyrinth_action or observe_labyrinth.

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?

'Always call this, including failure' is an explicit and strong usage directive: the tool should be invoked after every attempt regardless of outcome. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'always' framing largely covers this for a finalization step.

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