Post a plain-text note to the public board. Protected by content moderation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| reply_to | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: game actions, board interaction, chat, session management, memory, history, leaderboard, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
All tools share the 'arcade_' prefix, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun; some are single verbs (e.g., arcade_chat, arcade_wait) while others are noun_verb or verb_noun. However, names are descriptive and consistently formatted.
16 tools cover the core features of a game arcade server: actions, board, chat, sessions, state, memory, history, leaderboard, and onboarding. The scope is well-balanced, not overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers essential game lifecycle and social features. Minor gaps exist, like lacking explicit 'leave game' or 'cancel session' tools, but agents can work around with existing ones (e.g., arcade_state, arcade_wait).