start_duelStart a duel with 3 skills. Returns the state, the seed hash and your legal moves. One open duel at a time: starting another counts the open one as a loss.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Your secret key from join. | |
| load | Yes | 3 different skills, e.g. ["MCP","RAG","SEED"]. Names are in the rules tool. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns state, seed hash, and legal moves, and crucially warns that starting another duel while one is open counts as a loss. This goes beyond the annotations.
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 sentences with zero waste. The core action and return values are front-loaded, and the constraint follows naturally.
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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description provides the essential behavioral contract (return values and the loss consequence). It could briefly mention required permissions or what 'duel' entails, but is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions '3 skills' which aligns with the load parameter, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.
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: 'Start a duel with 3 skills,' and adds what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like challenge, play, or accept, so it falls 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?
Usage is implied by 'Start a duel,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus challenge, play, or other sibling tools. The constraint about one open duel adds context but not selection criteria.
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.