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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral details: choices are sealed as sha256(choice:salt), commits are recorded before any reveal, and replay can prove the process. It omits state or turn specifics, but the core commit-reveal behavior is clearly 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?

The description is dense and runs as one long sentence, mixing an enumeration of games with protocol details. Every word contributes, but the structure is hard to scan and would benefit from segmentation.

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 complex multi-game tool with no schema and no output schema, the description provides rules and security mechanics but not enough actionable detail about how to start a game, submit choices, or interpret results. An agent can grasp the concept but not fully invoke the tool without more context.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema places no burden on the description; the baseline for no params is 4. The description also hints at the expected input format through sha256(choice:salt), which adds useful context.

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 names the tool's domain as the commit-reveal games and lists the specific games included: Split or Steal, Rock-Paper-Scissors, Prisoner's Dilemma, and Battleship. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the resource and scope are identifiable and distinct from general arena 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arena_play, arena_clash, or arena_minefield. The commit-reveal framing implies a category, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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