NextArena Tournament Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: scoring semantics ('each player receives their pair's rally points') and non-persistence ('Does not save or publish results'). It stops short of describing ranking behavior or tie handling, which would have made this a 5.

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 clarification mandate dominates the opening half, so the actual purpose arrives mid-description rather than up front, and the rules are stated at high redundancy ('ask instead of generating', 'requires clarification, not an Americano'). The guidance is valuable but could be compressed to two or three sentences without losing 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?

For a nested-object, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key inputs (config plus all completed previousRounds), the scoring interpretation, and the fact that nothing is persisted. What remains unexplained — the standings table shape and tie-breaking — is largely inferable from the ranking parameter documented in the schema.

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 67% schema coverage, the schema does most of the work (seed, ranking modes, pointsPerMatch semantics are all documented there). The description only names the two inputs to supply ('config and all completed previousRounds') and adds one scoring rule; it contributes little parameter meaning beyond the structured 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 operative sentence — 'individual PADEL Mexicano standings from completed round scores, without generating another round' — gives a specific verb, resource and scope, and implicitly separates this tool from generate_mexicano_round. However, that sentence sits after a long precondition block, so the core purpose is not front-loaded and the sibling is never named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states explicit when-to-use ('user wants ... standings from completed round scores, without generating another round'), when-not-to-use ('ask instead of generating'), and names the alternative tool ('call get_supported_tournament_options to discover choices'). It also enumerates prohibited inferences (player/court counts, defaults, prior conversations) and hand-dates reuse of confirmed choices.

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?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: rounds are planned before play, the tool does not save or publish the event, uneven-rest warnings must be relayed to the user, and the full schedule must be shown round by round. This is rich behavioral disclosure that annotations do not carry.

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 critical precondition is front-loaded in a labeled 'MANDATORY BEFORE CALLING' clause, and sentences are dense with distinct rules. It runs long and repeats the anti-inference rule twice (defaults and the 20-players example), which costs a point but the length is defensible for an 11-parameter tool with routing rules.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return shape (round-by-round schedule with start time, court, pairs, rests) and how to handle warnings, plus the no-save scope. It is nearly complete, though undocumented parameters like preference and durationMinutes remain a 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?

Schema coverage is 55%, so several parameters (preference, rounds, durationMinutes, startTime, pointsPerMatch) are undocumented in both places. The description compensates partially by explaining restMinutes and the individuals-vs-fixed-teams distinction tied to names, but leaves the remaining parameters unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Generate an Americano' for padel, rotating doubles, individual entrants) and explicitly distinguishes it from pickleball round-robin and score-led Mexicano pairings. An agent can identify the tool without opening 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?

Explicit preconditions ('user must have chosen BOTH sport and format'), explicit when-not ('never infer sport or format from... player/court counts or a default'), a named discovery alternative (get_supported_tournament_options), and a concrete routing example for the 20-players/four-courts case. Nothing is left 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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds behavior annotations do not carry: generation must be blocked until inputs are confirmed, the response must be presented in full rather than summarized, and winners are not recorded. These are real constraints on how the agent runs the call, not restatements of the annotation flags.

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?

Front-loaded with the mandatory precondition block before the capability description, and every sentence carries a rule. Some redundancy exists between the 'never infer' sentence and the 'requires clarification, not an Americano' example, keeping it just short of ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly states that every returned match with round, court and time must be shown. It covers the highest-risk ambiguity (unconfirmed sport/format) and scope limits. It does not explain how byes are derived from count or how courts constrain scheduling, but those gaps are modest for a read-only computed 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?

Schema coverage is 75% and already documents seed repetition, names vs. numbered placeholders, and time format. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: sport must be user-confirmed rather than inferred, and individuals vs. fixed teams should be clarified when ambiguous. It leaves court-count and duration semantics to the schema, which mostly handles 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?

States a specific verb and resource: a pickleball seeded or random single-elimination bracket with byes, court assignments and provisional times. It also names what it is not (no winners recorded, no saved event, no double elimination), which separates it from the round-robin, Americano and Mexicano 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?

Explicit preconditions: sport and format must both be confirmed for this tournament, otherwise ask or call get_supported_tournament_options. It names the alternative tool, forbids inferring from prior conversation or player/court counts, and gives a concrete disambiguation example ('20 players on four courts').

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool is stateless, returns the prior state with scores filled in, and does not save, publish or change a live tournament. It also sets output expectations (show time, court, pairs and who rests) and warns that future pairings cannot be known in advance, which is behaviorally important for a 'generate' tool marked read-only.

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 definition is front-loaded with the mandatory precondition and then proceeds through usage, output expectations and configuration advice. It is dense and long, but most sentences carry necessary routing or behavioral information; a few sentences, such as the example clarification, could be tightened without losing 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?

For a stateless, multi-round tool with nested config and no output schema, the description covers the full calling contract: when to call, what to ask first, how to chain prior rounds, what to display in the returned round, and how to handle rests. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and avoid the common failure of inferring sport or format.

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 67%, and the description adds useful semantic guidance on key config choices: when to offer config.ranking=average, how to suggest a round count for equal rests, and setting config.restMinutes for breaks. It also explains the priorRounds workflow, though several schema-described fields such as seed, pointsPerMatch and startTime receive no additional description-level treatment.

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 and resource: generating a PADEL Mexicano round. It explicitly distinguishes itself from Americano and routes the agent to get_supported_tournament_options when sport or format is missing, so an agent can select it confidently among its 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?

It gives explicit preconditions (sport and format confirmed for this tournament), concrete when-not-to-call instructions (ask instead of inferring from player/court counts or defaults), and names the alternative discovery tool. It also covers ambiguous individuals versus fixed teams and when to suggest ranking or restMinutes, leaving little 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully confirms the consequence: 'Free draft only; no saving or publishing.' It adds genuinely behavioral context beyond the schema — full draws run n*(n-1)/2 matches and may need multiple court waves, rotating doubles will not guarantee everyone meets everyone, and it must surface fixtures in full round-by-round rather than summarizing. It stops short of describing return shape or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 critical mandate is front-loaded, but the body repeats the same rule several times ('Never infer sport or format', 'Establish sport first', 'Before calling, establish singles vs fixed teams', 'Never infer fixed teams from an individual player count'). It reads as a policy document rather than a tool description, and the actual 'what this does' clause lands mid-paragraph after the preamble. Tightening the duplicated clarification guidance would materially help.

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 10-parameter, 6-required generator with no output schema, it covers the decisions an agent must resolve first (sport, format, players-vs-teams, full vs limited rounds, session time), the downstream consequences (court waves, total match count, over-time fallback), and the sibling routing. Nothing needed to call this correctly is left unstated.

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 90% so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics: 'count' means players for singles/rotating and complete teams for fixed doubles (never silently divided); 'mode' rotating_doubles requires a numeric round count while 'rounds: auto' is only valid for full singles/fixed-team draws; 'durationMinutes' should be asked, not assumed 20. This disambiguates the two knobs (count and rounds) that the schema alone leaves risky.

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+resource combination and enumerates the three fixture shapes it produces for pickleball (singles, fixed-team, rotating doubles). It also explicitly routes away from siblings: rotating partners go here 'not generate_americano', and 'pickleball round robin or knockout' distinguishes it from generate_bracket. An agent can tell which generator it is without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives: missing sport/format → ask or call get_supported_tournament_options; padel Americano → generate_americano; pickleball knockout → generate_bracket. It even gives a worked counter-example ('Make a tournament for 20 players on four courts' requires clarification, not an Americano) and forbids inferring from player/court counts or defaults.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: it does not generate tournaments or select defaults, and its returned scope narrows based on the sport argument. It does not describe the shape of the response, which the absent output schema would have required clarification for.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary use case and tightly sequenced: purpose, non-goal, sport-handling rules, and a display caveat. Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; minor redundancy in the sport-permission sentence.

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 one optional enum param, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers the key decisions an agent must make: whether to call, with or without sport, and how to present results. Only the response shape is unaddressed, which is acceptable without an output schema but leaves a 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum is documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds interpretation beyond the schema: omit sport when unknown, ask the user rather than infer, and scope results to the confirmed sport's formats.

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+resource ('get supported tournament options' framed as discovery tool) and explicitly names what it does NOT do ('Does not generate a tournament or select defaults'). This clearly distinguishes it from the generate_* siblings, which produce tournaments.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('generic tournament request with no confirmed sport or format'), when-not (not for generation/defaulting), and conditional routing rules per sport. The instruction to ask Pickleball or padel first, and to return only the confirmed sport's formats, removes ambiguity.

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