Show authentication state, recover any active session, and suggest the next step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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.
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).