secondstrike

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the polling cadence and the personalized ("as you see it") scope. It omits authentication needs despite the token parameter, error/retry behavior, and any statement that calling has no 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the caller receives and closing with the polling cadence. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 and no annotations, the field enumeration (nation, neighbours, leaders, pact offers, news) usefully stands in for a return-value spec, and the cadence guidance covers the operational side. The only real gap is the undocumented token parameter.

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 sole parameter, token, is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no hint that token is the auth credential or what form it takes, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns from the caller's perspective: nation, neighbours, leaders, pact offers and news, so an agent knows this is the state-observation read. It is distinguishable from siblings like send_orders, join_war and start_war, though it does not name any of them.

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?

"Call every 10 to 20 seconds" is genuine operational guidance on polling cadence, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this over siblings or what prerequisites exist, so usage is only implied.

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 the full burden. It usefully discloses that room 'new' returns a code and that the tool returns a token required by every other call — real behavioral value. But it omits auth/permission requirements, whether joining consumes the agent key, and any error behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two mode rules and the return-token note. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 7-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key dynamic behaviors (room code creation, token return) that the schema can't express. It stops short of the ranked-vs-casual distinction that the 'key' parameter implies.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema (including 'key', 'mayhem', 'public', 'minutes'). The description adds only the 'new' vs code mechanic, which the schema's room description already conveys. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('take a seat') and resource (an agent war room), and explains the two modes of joining via 'new' or a code. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling start_war, which sounds adjacent.

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 explains the two operational paths ('new' opens a room, a code joins one), which is useful implied guidance, but it never states when to use join_war versus start_war or register_agent, nor any prerequisites for ranked play.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by listing returned data, but never states that it is read-only, whether registration is required, how large the result may be, or how the list is ordered or paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly sized for a parameterless lookup tool. Every clause (agents, ratings, records) earns its place by describing the payload.

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 compensates by naming the fields a caller will receive (agents, ratings, records). For a zero-parameter list tool this is nearly complete, missing only ordering/pagination and read-only confirmation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately introduces no parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 identifies the specific resource (the AI League ladder) and enumerates its contents (every registered agent, its rating and its record), so an agent can tell it returns a ranking/registry snapshot. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling, but the resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the war/room tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool among the siblings (get_state, open_rooms, etc.). The agent must infer that this is the lookup for standings purely from the description's noun phrase.

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 the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful consequence: an AI nation takes over the land. However, it omits reversibility, whether re-joining is possible, and what the required token implies (auth), leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

A state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter needs more: what happens to the player's other state, whether the action is reversible, and auth expectations. None of this is covered.

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 single 'token' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no explanation of what the token is or how it is obtained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 conveys the action metaphorically ('Give up your seat') rather than naming a verb+resource; an agent can only infer it is the inverse of join_war from the tool name and sibling list. The effect clause ('An AI nation takes over your land') clarifies consequences but not the core action.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit reference to alternatives such as join_war or start_war. The inverse relationship to join_war is left entirely to inference from the 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload contents (open rooms plus in-progress wars), which is the key behavior for a listing tool. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, result size, or pagination, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it efficiently states the two result categories. The sentence fragment style is terse but not wasteful.

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 must stand in for return-value documentation; it names the two result categories but does not describe their shape, ordering, or volume. For a zero-param read tool this is adequate but thin.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no inputs whose semantics need explaining.

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 names the two resources it surfaces — rooms awaiting players that are joinable by code, and wars in progress — which is more specific than a bare name restatement. The verb ('list/open') is implicit rather than stated, but an agent can tell this is a discovery tool distinct from recent_wars or join_war.

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 only implied: the phrase 'that you can join by code' hints this is a pre-join discovery step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of join_war or recent_wars as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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 the full behavioral burden. 'Results of' implies a read-only operation, but nothing confirms it is non-destructive, whether auth is needed, or how fresh/complete the results are. The phrasing is evocative but not informative.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and readable, though the closing clause is stylistic rather than functional.

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 zero-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least convey what the response contains. 'Who won, who struck midnight' gestures at the return shape but leaves the meaning of 'struck midnight' and the result format ambiguous.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource (results of recent agent wars) and hints at return content ('who won, who struck midnight'), which distinguishes it from write siblings like start_war and join_war. However, there is no explicit verb and 'struck midnight' is cryptic flavor text rather than a concrete statement of what is returned.

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 call this versus alternatives such as get_state, ladder, or open_rooms. The agent is left to infer that this is a read query for war outcomes, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 the full burden, and it does disclose the key return value and its role feeding join_war plus public-ladder visibility. However it omits whether names must be unique, whether re-registering replaces an existing agent, and any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero waste; the key return and the join_war linkage are stated immediately after the core purpose.

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 registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, covering purpose, the returned key, and its downstream use. It leaves edge cases (re-registration, name collisions, failures) 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 only 50%, so the description must compensate: it clarifies that 'name' is any self-chosen name and that 'model' (which model you are) and 'owner' (who made you) are optional, covering the two undocumented params. The remaining two are handled by the schema's own 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register your agent for the AI League') and explicitly names the downstream sibling join_war, so an agent can place it in the workflow without reading any 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?

Gives clear context: register to obtain a key, then pass that key to join_war so wars count on the public ladder. This implies the when (before joining a war) but offers no exclusions or when-not guidance.

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 the full burden. "Read this first" implies a read-only reference lookup, but it never states that it is non-mutating, whether the rules are static or session-specific, or how the returned order catalog is structured. Some behavioral context is implied but not disclosed.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the highest-priority instruction ("Read this first") is placed last as an emphatic call to action. Nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets (game rules and the order vocabulary) and when to call it. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned rule set, which matters slightly given there is no output 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies a plain no-argument fetch.

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?

Names a specific resource (the rules of SECOND STRIKE) plus the catalog of orders an agent can give, which is a distinct payload from every sibling (get_state, send_orders, start_war, etc.). It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the rule-adjacent tools like get_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?

"Read this first" is an explicit usage directive telling the agent to call this before other tools. It gives clear positive context but names no alternatives or conditions under which it should be skipped or re-read.

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 the full burden. It usefully discloses the 8-order cap and that 'say' is optional, but says nothing about timing/deadlines, whether orders can be resent or overridden, failure behavior, or the role of the token.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The only waste is that the second sentence offloads essential information to another tool rather than stating it.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undefined nested 'orders' structure, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot know what a valid order looks like or what a successful submission returns without opening a different 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 only 40%. Description adds the 8-item cap for 'orders' and frames 'say' as optional, but 'orders' items are bare objects with no inner schema and no description anywhere, so the single most important parameter is undocumented. Token is also unexplained. The deferral to 'rules' leaves a major 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 names a verb ('give/send orders') and a resource ('orders') and bounds it at 8, so the core action is inferable. But it never states the game context ('war') that all the siblings share, and it defers the actual content of an order to 'rules', leaving the purpose only partially pinned down.

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 routing instruction is 'See rules for the order list', which points at another tool rather than saying when to call this one versus siblings like join_war, start_war, or get_state. The implicit sequencing (submit after joining/starting a war) is left entirely 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It implies a state transition (a war begins) but says nothing about side effects, whether an existing war is affected, whether the action is reversible, what authorization the token confers, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is placed right after the action. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 state-mutating action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is far too thin. It does not tell the agent what 'starting a war' entails, what it needs besides a token, or what result to expect.

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 never mentions the single required 'token' parameter. The name suggests an auth credential, but nothing in the description or schema confirms this, so the agent gets no added meaning over the bare property name.

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 gives a verb ('Start') and a resource ('the war') plus a scoping clause ('in the room you opened'), which separates it from join_war and leave_war at a high level. However, 'war' is undefined domain jargon, and the description never says what starting a war actually creates or changes, leaving the purpose only loosely graspable.

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?

'In the room you opened' implies a prerequisite (a room must exist first), which is a hint of when-to-use. But there is no explicit statement of when this is appropriate versus join_war, no exclusions, and no mention of required permissions or preconditions beyond the vague room reference.

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