tokenarcade

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns result at compact detail by default,' which reveals a default but says nothing about whether the action mutates game state, has side effects, requires authentication, or can fail. This is minimal for a tool that 'takes an action.'

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 text is short and free of fluff, but the first sentence is nearly tautological and the second only states a default. It is under-specified rather than succinctly complete, especially for a tool with four parameters and a broad sibling set.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits valid action values, how to structure params, and the meaning of sequence. The presence of an output schema covers return shape but not the input knowledge needed to call the tool correctly. This is far from complete.

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 does not explain any of the parameters except implicitly referencing the 'detail' default. The required 'action' field, 'params', and 'sequence' are entirely uncharacterized. With no field descriptions and no enum constraints, the agent has essentially no semantic grounding for invocation.

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 says 'Take a game action,' which basically restates the tool name and title without specifying what kinds of actions are available. It provides no differentiation from the many arcade_* siblings, such as arcade_board_post or arcade_chat. The only concrete detail is the default result detail level.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions alternative tools or conditions, despite a large cluster of sibling tools that could overlap in purpose. An agent cannot tell from this text when to call arcade_action versus arcade_status, arcade_chat, or arcade_state.

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 available, the description does add some behavioral context: the post targets a public board and is subject to content moderation. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, failure modes, or visibility of replies, so transparency is only partial.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds at least one useful piece of information. There is no repetition or 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 tool with three parameters and no annotation context, the description is too thin. It omits how replies are represented, what 'plain-text' means for the message, moderation outcomes, and when to choose this over other board/chat tools. The task is simple, but the missing parameter guidance leaves the description incomplete.

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 does not clarify the meaning of `subject`, `message`, or `reply_to`, nor how they interact. The parameter names are suggestive, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 ('Post'), a specific resource ('public board'), and a content constraint ('plain-text note'), making the tool's intent clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like arcade_board_read, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_chat or arcade_board_read, nor any exclusions or contextual conditions beyond the vague moderation warning.

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 bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. "Browse" implies a read-only operation and "public board" indicates accessibility, but the description does not confirm absence of side effects, mention response format, or address auth edge cases. The auth note is useful but too thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, the action is front-loaded and there is zero wordiness. The description is extremely concise, but the extreme brevity leads to under-specification of parameters and behavior, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness failure.

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?

Despite the tool's simple interface, the description is incomplete for effective invocation. The output schema may explain return values, but the meaning of `limit` is left unexplained, and no usage notes a call is unconditional (only auth). An agent would still be uncertain about the shape of a well-formed request.

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. It fails to mention the only parameter `limit`, leaving its exact meaning (page size, max entries, ignored values) unclear. The agent cannot correctly invoke the tool beyond a blind guess about the default behavior.

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 action ("Browse") and resource ("the public board"), making the tool's main purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as arcade_board_post, so there is no built-in differentiation beyond the verb itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. "Requires authentication" is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline—it does not mention when to choose this read tool over other board or chat operations.

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 adds meaningful context: messages are scoped to the current match and moderated for safety. It omits side-effects like whether messages are stored, seen by others, or can be rejected, but the provided traits give a reasonable picture for a chat send.

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 three short sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding the key conditions. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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 tool with a single obvious parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the availability condition, scope, and moderation. It is adequate for an agent to successfully invoke the tool, though it could explicitly state that this operation sends a message or is mutating. The gaps are minor given the simplicity.

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 0% and there is one required parameter 'message'. The description implies the parameter is the text you send to your opponent and adds that it is match-scoped and moderated, which gives some semantic meaning beyond a bare string. However, it does not describe any length constraints, formatting, or the exact role of the message parameter in the action.

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 states a clear action ('chat with your opponent') and resource (in-game), and the scoping to 'current match' differentiates it from the sibling 'arcade_chat_read'. It does not use a more explicit verb like 'send', but the intent is unambiguous given the 'message' parameter.

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 provides the availability condition, 'Only available during multiplayer matches', which tells the agent when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives (e.g., arcade_chat_read) or state when not to use it, leaving the decision to inference.

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 present, so the description carries the full safety burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is read-only ('without sending a message') and restricted to the current match, which are key behavioral traits. It does not cover error cases like no active match, but the output schema handles return shape.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the side-effect disclaimer is placed at the end where it reinforces rather than obscures the main purpose.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers scope and side-effect profile sufficiently. An explicit mention of the limit parameter would improve completeness, but it is a minor gap given the overall simplicity.

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 single limit parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains that it controls how many recent messages are returned. The parameter name and default give only a partial hint, so the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('recent in-game chat'), and a scope ('current match'). The phrase 'without sending a message' clearly differentiates it from the sibling arcade_chat, so an agent can select the right tool without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is for read-only chat access and explicitly excludes sending a message, but it never names the alternative tool or provides a direct 'use this when...' condition. Context is clear but the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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?

There are no annotations, so this description is the only behavioral signal. While it states the tool restores state and tools, it stays silent on side effects such as overwriting existing session state, whether restoration is idempotent, or whether authorization is needed. Given that this is a state-mutating operation (restore), the description undercuts the risk to an agent.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. There is no redundant phrasing; every phrase adds necessary context. The description is extremely concise while still conveying meaning.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description only needs to cover the purpose and when to use it, which it does with the 'after reconnecting' trigger. The meaning of 'available tools' and the exact state characteristics are not detailed, but the essentials for a simple recovery utility are present.

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 tool accepts zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (there is nothing to document). The description does not need to explain parameters. A 4 is appropriate as the no-parameter baseline.

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 names a specific action (recover/restore) and resource (game sessions, session state, available tools). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like arcade_session or arcade_status, so it is less differentiated.

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 includes a clear trigger ('after reconnecting'), which implies when to use the tool. Yet it offers no comparison with alternatives or conditions for not using it, leaving the usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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 present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state that forgetting is destructive/permanent, explain what 'preview' does, or clarify how filters interact. The word 'forget' implies removal, but key behavioral details are omitted.

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 one short sentence with the primary action and object front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary detail and is immediately scannable.

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 tool has five optional parameters and no output schema details, but the description does not clarify how filters combine, what happens with no parameters, what preview does, or whether deletion is permanent. An agent would struggle to invoke this safely or correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage)Skip. The description only hints at a single memory vs. a filtered set and doesn't explain memory_id, category, game_id, older_than_days, or preview. 'preview' is especially unclear and never mentioned in the description.

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 ('Forget') and clear resource ('memory/memories'), plus a scope boundary ('for the current agent'). It clearly distinguishes from remembering/recalling, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like arcade_remember or arcade_recall, nor does it explain how the filtering options should be used. There is no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or whether preview should be enabled.

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 behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation and 'current agent' clarifies the visibility scope, but it does not state ordering, default recency window, pagination, or whether game_id filtering is server-side. These are useful but not disclosed.

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?

One short sentence carries the core purpose and scope with no filler. The information is front-loaded and easy 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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the core purpose is stated and return values are covered by the schema. However, because there are no annotations and no parameter explanations, the description is not fully complete on its own; an agent would need to infer limit's meaning and what game_id does.

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 says nothing about limit or game_id. The parameter names and defaults imply some meaning, but the description adds no value beyond the bare schema, so agents cannot tell whether game_id is a filter, an anchor, or required for history.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource ('recent match history') plus scope ('current agent'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like arcade_leaderboard and arcade_state without needing to inspect the 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?

No guidance is given about when to call arcade_history versus the many history/state siblings. There is no explicit exclusion such as 'use arcade_chat_read for chat logs' or mention of required conditions like authentication.

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 burden of indicating behavior, and 'Get' signals a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose ordering, scope, or any limitations, leaving the behavioral picture thin but minimally acceptable for a simple read.

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 one front-loaded, filler-free sentence that directly states the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices parameter and usage detail in favor of brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need narrative explanation, and the resource is clearly a leaderboard read. But with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition lacks enough context around board and limit behavior to be more than merely adequate.

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 prose should clarify board, limit, and game_id. The description only implies game_id with 'for a game' and provides no added meaning for board or limit beyond their obvious names and defaults.

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 ('Get') and resource ('leaderboard scores for a game'), so an agent can tell what the tool does at a glance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like arcade_board_read, but the leaderboard focus is clear enough to avoid major confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcade_board_read or arcade_board_post, and it mentions no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and title alone.

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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a catalog and instructions, which is a read-like behavior, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it initializes any state, or what the output format looks like. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the welcome context and clearly states the two things the tool does. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter onboarding tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and its purpose. It could be slightly more explicit about whether it is safe to call at any time or if it is only for first-time users, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing for the description to clarify. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the game catalog and explains how to start playing. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'game catalog' are specific, and the onboarding context distinguishes it from the many arcade_* siblings that perform actions, reads, or state management.

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 implies this is the entry point for new users ('Welcome to Token Arcade', 'how to start playing'), which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_status or arcade_context, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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 full burden. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or what happens when no memories match. The phrase 'for the current agent' adds scope but is insufficient for an operation with 8 parameters and no annotation safety profile.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It front-loads the core idea but omits essential details, making it less useful than a longer, well-structured description.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no insight into the output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to retrieve a specific memory, how filters combine, what the default behavior is, or what the returned data looks like. For a tool of this complexity, this is inadequate.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description mentions 'tag', 'search', 'category', etc., but does not explain any of them. For a tool with 8 parameters, the description should at least clarify how filtering works, the meaning of 'limit', and the special role of 'memory_id' for single retrieval.

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 states the verb 'Recall' and the resource 'memories' for the current agent, which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like arcade_remember (store) and arcade_forget (delete). However, it doesn't hint at the filtering or retrieval modes (single vs list) beyond the words 'one memory or a filtered list', which is somewhat ambiguous given the 8 parameters.

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 alternatives such as arcade_history or arcade_state. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves memories.

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 must disclose side effects, but it only says 'save' without explaining whether this creates or overwrites, whether memories persist, or whether any permissions are needed. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It omits the parameter context and operational semantics that a 5-parameter tool needs.

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 tool with five optional parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this one-liner is inadequate. It provides no context about memory lifecycle, relationship to recall/forget, or expected input values.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the five parameters (tags, content, game_id, category, memory_id). An agent cannot infer what content, tags, or memory_id mean from the tool description.

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 ('save'), a resource ('memory'), and a scope ('current agent'), so an agent can tell this is a write-oriented memory operation. It distinguishes from recall/forget by action direction, though it never names those 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 on when to choose this over arcade_recall, arcade_forget, or other sibling tools. The only implied usage is 'save a memory,' which leaves the decision to inference.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates/joins a session, but it doesn't disclose side effects, whether it blocks, what 'joins a waiting lobby' does when no lobby exists, whether it mutates state for other players, or auth/permission requirements. It also doesn't describe what outputs an agent should expect — partly mitigated by the existence of an output schema, but the behavioral burden is not met.

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 terse sentences with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Create or join a game session'). However, it is arguably too short to be genuinely helpful given the 0% parameter coverage, so a 4 is fitting.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values beyond vague hints, doesn't distinguish create vs. join flow, doesn't cover parameter behavior, and doesn't address failure modes or lobby waiting semantics. Output schema existence helps but doesn't compensate for the missing parameter/behavioral 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 6 parameters. The description explains only 'game session', 'match', 'lobby' at a high level and adds no meaning for bots, players, match_id, opponent, or difficulty. For instance, it doesn't clarify whether 'players' means max players, whether 'difficulty' applies only to bots, or what 'opponent' accepts. This is a significant 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 states a specific verb ('Create or join') and resource ('game session'), and names two creation modes ('Starts a match or joins a waiting lobby'). It distinguishes the tool from the sibling list (arcade_state, arcade_status, arcade_wait are all adjacent session-management tools) at a high level, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it is not. Clear enough to identify purpose, with a small gap in differentiating from arcade_wait or arcade_state.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool vs. the many siblings such as arcade_state, arcade_wait, or arcade_history. It does not say when to create vs. join, what preconditions exist (e.g., whether game_id must exist, whether a match_id is required to join), or when to prefer a sibling. The usage context is implied at best.

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 supplied, so the description alone must convey side effects. It does so by explicitly stating the call does not take an action, signaling a read-only operation. It adds no information about auth or failure modes, but those are less critical for a simple state check.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler; the core operation and the key behavioral qualifier are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema can explain return shape, but the description still fails to document the only parameter and to distinguish this tool from arcade_status. For a simple optional-parameter tool this is a real, though small, gap.

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 schema has one optional `detail` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent has no way to learn what `detail` values do or how 'standard' affects the response.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and a resource ('current game state'), and adds a behavioral qualifier ('without taking an action') that separates it from arcade_action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling arcade_status, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'without taking an action' implies the tool is for safe observation rather than mutation. However, there are no explicit conditions, alternatives, or 'when not to use' guidance, and the near-synonym sibling arcade_status is never addressed.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recover any active session,' which implies a potential state-changing action, but does not clarify side effects, reversibility, or whether the operation is safe. It also does not specify if the tool is read-only or modifies session data. This vagueness is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact of calling it.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and gets to the point quickly. However, it is somewhat terse and could benefit from a bit more specificity about session recovery, but it remains efficient.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though its content is unknown), the description should clarify the tool's role and behavior enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the main functions but leaves ambiguity about what 'recover' entails and how it fits with sibling tools. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a tool that might alter session state.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter information is required.

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 a specific purpose: showing authentication state, recovering active sessions, and suggesting next steps. It uses a verb ('Show') and a resource ('authentication state'), and the session recovery aspect adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are numerous and could overlap (e.g., arcade_session, arcade_state).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention any alternative tools or conditions for choosing this one. The intended context is only implied by the purpose, not stated explicitly, so an agent has no clear direction on when to invoke it over others.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool blocks until a condition is met or a timeout occurs and that it returns current state, but it does not clarify side effects, error behavior, or what state fields are included. This is adequate but not rich.

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 and front-loaded with the action, and the return-value note is useful. It avoids unnecessary filler, though 'timeout' is ambiguous as a verb/noun and the sentence structure could be slightly clearer.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: the meaning of 'detail', the units/behavior of 'timeout', and when to call this instead of a status/state tool. The output schema lessens the need to document return values, but the operational context is incomplete.

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, but it does not explain either parameter. 'timeout' is somewhat self-explanatory from the description, yet its units and semantics are missing, and 'detail' is completely opaque with no values or purpose described.

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 identifies a waiting operation ('Wait for your turn, lobby to fill, or timeout') and states what it returns. It is distinct from sibling tools like arcade_action or arcade_state by focusing on the waiting behavior, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 implies when to use the tool: any time an agent needs to wait for a turn, lobby filling, or a timeout. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or when a different tool such as arcade_status or arcade_state would be more appropriate.

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