tokenarcade

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

No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or required permissions. Only mentions default detail level.

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 brief but omits essential information, so it is under-specified rather than concise.

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 (1 required) and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not help the agent construct valid invocations.

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 adds no meaning to any of the four parameters. 'Action', 'params', 'sequence' are completely unexplained.

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?

Description 'Take a game action' is a tautology with the tool name 'arcade_action'. It does not specify what constitutes a game action, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like arcade_state or arcade_history.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing context on prerequisites or conditions.

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 provides the only behavioral info: 'Protected by content moderation.' This hints at a safety check but does not disclose other traits like idempotency, rate limits, or success/failure outcomes.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words. Efficient but could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, but the description does not hint at return values, permissions, or behavior beyond moderation. It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific information (e.g., formats, constraints). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing 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's action ('Post'), resource ('plain-text note'), and target ('public board'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'arcade_board_read' and 'arcade_chat' effectively.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is clear, but the description lacks any when-not or related tool mentions.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions authentication, not read-only nature, idempotency, or side effects. 'Browse' implies non-destructive but is not explicit.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. However, the brevity sacrifices important details, making it less effective than it could be.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description fails to mention the limit parameter's role, lack of filtering, or output structure. It feels incomplete for effective usage.

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%. The description does not explain the 'limit' parameter, its purpose (e.g., pagination), or how it affects results. This is a critical gap for a tool with one parameter.

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 'Browse the public board' clearly states the verb (browse) and resource (public board), distinguishing it from siblings like arcade_board_post. However, it lacks detail on what browsing entails (e.g., listing posts, viewing metadata).

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 only guidance is 'Requires authentication'. No information about when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., arcade_chat_read, arcade_board_post) or context for invocation.

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 full burden. It adds behavioral context: messages are 'scoped to your current match and moderated for safety.' This is helpful but lacks specifics on moderation behavior (e.g., what happens if a message is moderated) or any side effects.

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: first states purpose and availability, second adds behavioral context. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information.

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 a single parameter and an output schema exists (so return values are covered). The description provides purpose, usage condition, and behavioral constraints. It could mention what happens on moderation failure or error cases, but overall is adequate for a simple chat tool.

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 one required string parameter 'message' with 0% coverage (no description). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter, such as length limits, format, or allowed content. The name 'message' is self-explanatory, but no additional semantics are provided.

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 is for 'in-game chat with your opponent' and specifies 'Only available during multiplayer matches,' which precisely identifies the verb (chat) and resource (opponent in match). It distinguishes from sibling 'arcade_chat_read' by focusing on sending messages.

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 explicitly says 'Only available during multiplayer matches,' guiding when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context implies single-player matches are excluded, and the sibling 'arcade_chat_read' serves reading, which is clear from the tool name.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It clarifies the read-only nature ('without sending a message') but omits other behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or behavior if no match is active.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, every word contributes to purpose. Front-loaded with the core action.

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's low complexity (one optional param, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the primary purpose. However, it could mention the limit parameter's role for completeness.

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 does not explain the 'limit' parameter (type, default, or effect). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's raw fields.

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 'Read' and identifies the resource 'recent in-game chat for your current match', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'arcade_chat' which may send messages.

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 usage by stating 'without sending a message', which hints at when to use this tool over alternatives, but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of siblings.

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool restores session state and tools, but lacks details on the nature of restoration (e.g., whether it is idempotent, what specific state elements are affected). Adequate but not thorough.

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 highly concise, with two short sentences that convey the essential purpose. No extraneous information.

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 but has an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspect. It could mention the type of state restored, but overall it is complete for its 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?

Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already documents the absence of parameters.

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 specific purpose: recovering game sessions after reconnecting and restoring session state and available tools. This differentiates it from sibling tools like arcade_session 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?

The description indicates when to use the tool ('after reconnecting'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'forgets' (implies deletion), but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, requires special permissions, or affects other agents. The preview parameter behavior is not explained.

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 short sentence, which is concise but sacrifices important detail. Given the complexity of filtering parameters, the description is under-specified.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema present but not described, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain how filters combine (AND/OR), the role of the preview flag, and the default behavior when no parameters are provided.

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 the input schema provides no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters. The tool description adds no information about parameters, leaving their meaning entirely to inference from names. This is a critical 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 tool's purpose: forgetting one or a filtered set of memories for the current agent. It uses a specific verb ('forget') and resource ('memories'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arcade_remember (store) and arcade_recall (retrieve).

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 erasing memories of the current agent, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to forget vs. update a memory). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 provided. Description does not disclose read-only nature, any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks structure like bullet points or usage notes. Adequate length but no front-loading of key details beyond the basic action.

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 having an output schema, the description is too brief. Missing parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage.

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%. Description adds no explanation for 'limit' or 'game_id'. Schema itself has no descriptions, so tool relies entirely on raw schema with defaults only.

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?

Description clearly states the action (return), resource (match history), and scope (current agent). Distinguishes from siblings like arcade_leaderboard (rankings) or arcade_status (current status).

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 on when to use vs alternatives such as arcade_leaderboard or arcade_status. Does not mention filtering by game_id or limit for pagination.

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 must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' scores, which implies a read operation, but does not clarify whether authentication is required, if scores are cached, or what the response format looks like. The existence of an output schema partly mitigates this, but the description contributes minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks important detail. While it front-loads the core action, the brevity comes at the cost of parameter explanation and usage context. The sentence earns its place but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 three parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. Parameter semantics are entirely missing. The presence of an output schema helps for return value understanding, but the description fails to provide enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (game_id, board, limit). The agent must infer that board defaults to 'main' and limit to 10 from the schema defaults, but the purpose of each parameter (e.g., what 'board' represents) is not explained. 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('leaderboard scores for a game'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arcade_board_read which might return board content. However, it could be more precise, e.g., 'Retrieve the top scores for a specific arcade game.'

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcade_board_read or arcade_board_post. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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 provided; description is minimal and does not disclose whether it has side effects or is idempotent. Adequate but not detailed.

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 concise single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's function with no wasted words.

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?

Sufficient for a simple onboarding tool with no parameters; however, details about 'game catalog' and 'how to start playing' are not elaborated.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose beyond the empty 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?

Description clearly states it returns game catalog and how to start playing, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions, chat, 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?

Implied usage as the entry point to Token Arcade, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic function, omitting any details about side effects, error handling, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The agent gains no insight into behavioral traits beyond the core operation.

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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is concise, though it could briefly mention parameter roles without becoming verbose.

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 an existing output schema not referenced, the description fails to cover what the tool returns or how filtering works. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool confidently.

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 tool description adds no explanation for any of the 8 parameters. The agent must infer parameter semantics solely from names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct 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 clearly states the verb 'Recall' and the resource 'one memory or a filtered list of memories' with scope 'for the current agent'. It accurately distinguishes the tool from siblings like arcade_forget and arcade_remember by focusing on retrieval.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_context or arcade_history. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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?

The description implies a write/mutation operation but provides no details on idempotency, overwriting behavior, authentication requirements, storage limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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, making it concise. However, it is overly minimal and could be restructured to include parameter groupings or usage hints without significant length increase.

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 five optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool description fails to explain memory semantics, relationships (e.g., between tags and categories), or the role of memory_id (create vs update). An output schema exists but is not detailed here.

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 tool description does not explain any of the five parameters (tags, content, game_id, category, memory_id). The agent has no semantic guidance to correctly populate these fields.

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 ('save') and resource ('memory') and scopes it to the current agent. It implies storage, which differentiates from arcade_forget (deletion) and arcade_recall (retrieval). However, it lacks precision on what constitutes a memory (e.g., key-value pairs).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_forget or arcade_recall. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where saving is appropriate, or cases where it should be avoided.

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 exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., state changes), required permissions, or what happens if the session already exists.

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, but too brief given the tool's complexity. It earns its keep but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 6 parameters, 1 required, and no schema documentation, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

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 provides no explanation of the 6 parameters (game_id, bots, players, etc.). The agent has no context to correctly fill them.

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 two specific verbs ('create or join') and the resource ('game session'), and mentions starting a match or joining a lobby. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arcade_action 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_wait or arcade_history. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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?

The description conveys that the tool is non-destructive and side-effect free, which is appropriate for a state-checking tool. However, it does not elaborate on what 'state' includes, how the 'detail' parameter affects the response, or any potential latency or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description alone carries the transparency burden, and it 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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the most important information. While it earns points for brevity, it lacks structured details about parameters or return values, which would benefit from a slightly longer 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 that the tool has a simple input schema (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'detail' parameter's purpose or possible values. For a read-only tool, the description should at least hint at what 'game state' includes. The output schema might compensate, but the description alone is insufficient.

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 is the only source of parameter guidance. It does not mention the 'detail' parameter at all, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to use it or what values are expected. 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 clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('current game state'), and explicitly distinguishes from action-oriented tools by adding 'without taking an action'. This directly addresses the sibling tool arcade_action, making purpose 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 phrase 'without taking an action' implies that this tool is for read-only queries, not for mutations. While it does not name alternatives explicitly, the sibling names (especially arcade_action) provide enough context for an agent to infer when to use this tool. However, explicit 'when not to use' guidance is absent.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows, recovers, and suggests, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether 'recover' mutates state), required permissions, or output format. The behavioral traits are under-specified.

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 that conveys the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., idempotency of session recovery) and does not mention the output structure, which the output schema would cover. Overall, it is minimally complete but could provide more guidance.

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 0 parameters, so the description naturally has no parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add param info.

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 specifies the tool's actions: 'Show authentication state, recover any active session, and suggest the next step.' It identifies a distinct resource (authentication status) and differentiates from sibling tools like arcade_session and 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 implies the tool is for checking authentication and getting next steps, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like arcade_state or arcade_session. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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 must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Returns current state' but does not clarify whether the tool blocks execution, what happens on timeout, or what 'current state' includes. This is insufficient for a wait operation.

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?

While short, the description omits essential information about parameters and behavior. It is under-specified rather than concisely complete.

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 lack of annotations and parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged, as 'Returns current state' is vague.

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 the description must explain parameters. However, it does not describe 'detail' or 'timeout' at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters.

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 'Wait' and mentions resources like 'your turn' and 'lobby', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from other arcade tools which involve actions, chat, or state retrieval.

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 three scenarios for using the tool: waiting for a turn, lobby to fill, or timeout. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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