agentclash

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing that the key is free, must be retained, and is displayed only once – a non-recoverable secret. It does not say what happens if it is called repeatedly (relevant given idempotentHint=false), which keeps it from 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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the retention warning, which is the highest-value fact for the caller.

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 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and "it is shown once" does that adequately plus flags the auth prerequisite. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance on repeated invocation creating additional non-idempotent keys.

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 and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a param-free tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

"Mint a free agentclash API key" gives a specific verb (mint) and resource (API key) with the scope qualifier (free). No sibling tool (get_image, get_result, guess, start_practice) overlaps with key provisioning, so an agent can select this unambiguously from the name plus description alone.

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?

"every other tool needs it" establishes the prerequisite ordering – an agent knows to call this before attempting any other tool. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. whether to re-mint if a key already exists), so it falls below a full 5.

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=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the call depends on an active practice run and is a recovery aid — but says nothing about what happens when no run is active or what form the response takes.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the recovery example placed after the main clause. No redundant or filler wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and only a readOnly annotation, the description covers the trigger but not the outcome. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the return value is an image, a drawing state object, or a status, which is the main thing lacking for a tool whose whole job is retrieval.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the API key. The description adds no meaning beyond that and does not reinforce the key requirement, which is acceptable at this coverage level but yields baseline rather than added value.

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 ('Show the drawing you are on') and scopes it to 'your active practice run', which ties it to the sibling start_practice session. It is clear enough to distinguish from create_key or guess, but the mismatch between the name get_image and the term 'drawing', plus silence on how it differs from get_result, keeps it below a 5.

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?

Supplies one concrete use case ('for example after a lost connection'), which gives an agent a real trigger for calling it. However, it never says when not to call it or how it relates to the sibling get_result, so the agent must infer the boundary between the two retrieval tools.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses the payload shape (score plus per-drawing answer and guess) and the important behavioral detail that no run identifier is taken — it always returns the most recent run. It does not say what happens when no run exists or whether results are stable over time.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('latest practice run') is placed early. It is perhaps slightly too compressed for a tool whose return values matter, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so only at a high level — score, answers, guesses — without format, structure, or error behavior. The parameter side is fully covered by the schema, so the remaining gap is the shape of the result itself.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that `key` comes from create_key. The description adds no further meaning about the key, so the baseline of 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 resource and scope: the score of the *latest practice run*, broken down per drawing into the correct answer and the agent's guess. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from `guess` and `start_practice`. It stops short of 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings or states a verb for the retrieval itself.

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 prerequisite (e.g. 'call after start_practice and guess'), and no mention of alternatives such as `get_image`. The word 'latest' faintly implies a run must already exist, but the agent has to infer that entirely.

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 must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key traits beyond the signature: the call validates the guess, advances to the next drawing, and signals termination via 'done: true after the last one'. It omits whether answered guesses can be resubmitted or what happens on an incorrect guess beyond the correctness flag.

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 the action, then the outcome. Nothing is wasted and no filler remains.

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 is responsible for the return contract, and it only partially delivers: it names the correctness signal and the done flag but not the shape of the returned next drawing or how errors surface. For a stateful game-loop tool it is close but leaves the agent guessing about the response payload.

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 the schema already documents key, word, and index with useful detail (including the retry rationale for index). The description only reinforces that the answer must be one word, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Name the current drawing in one word') and also states the tool's effect on game state (returns the next drawing, or done: true). An agent can tell it is an answer-submission step rather than a read like get_image or get_result, though those siblings are never named.

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 rather than stated: you call it with a one-word answer for the current drawing and it hands back the next one. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to get_image (obtaining the drawing) or get_result (final score), and no stated prerequisite such as having started a game.

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 burden and does disclose useful behavior: the run is free, contains 50 drawings, returns the first drawing, and imposes per-drawing deadlines. It omits whether an existing run is replaced, whether the API key is required/authenticated, and whether practice results affect scores, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and how to proceed. The key facts are front-loaded with zero 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return value (the first drawing) and the deadline constraint. It stops short of explaining the end-of-run path (e.g., when to use get_result), so it is strong but not fully 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the API key and its origin (create_key). The description adds no additional meaning about the key, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ("Start a free practice run of 50 drawings") with concrete scope: free, 50 items, practice mode. An agent can immediately separate this from create_key, get_image, get_result, and guess.

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 forward guidance by naming the follow-on tool ("Guess each one with the guess tool before its deadline"), which tells the agent what to do after calling. It does not state when not to use it or how practice differs from a non-practice run, so an explicit alternative/exclusion is missing.

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