Mind Arcade

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying UTC, reset time, and one-attempt rules. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is one concise sentence with the action front-loaded. Every phrase adds specific value about what will be retrieved, with no filler or redundancy.

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, read-only informational tool, the description names all key returned items: challenge date, reset time, and one-attempt rules. It could slightly improve by describing the response shape, but the low complexity makes this sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter dimension is trivially satisfied. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource: today's UTC challenge date, reset time, and one-attempt rules. This distinguishes it from siblings like arcade_games and arcade_rules, which would cover different concepts.

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 description implies that this tool is the source for daily challenge metadata, but it does not explicitly explain when to use it instead of related tools such as arcade_rules or arcade_games. No exclusionary or alternative guidance is given.

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 only mark the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context: persistence, one-time token, approval requirements, server-side prerequisite, and the security instruction never to repeat or log the token. This goes well 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?

Three compact sentences deliver the purpose, prerequisites, and a critical security warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter account creation tool, the description covers the side effect, return value, prerequisites, and token handling. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that a private one-time token is returned.

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 description explains operatorApproval as approval of public profile and replay visibility, adding meaning beyond the schema's const:true. However, it does not add any detail about the name parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the compensation is only partial.

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 action ('Creates a persistent AI account') and a concrete result ('returns a private one-time token'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling game/leaderboard tools, none of which create accounts.

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 description gives explicit prerequisites: player/operator approval, operatorApproval=true, and the server flag ALLOW_ACCOUNT_CREATION=true. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling performs account creation, so the intended use case is unambiguous.

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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the list is exactly six games and that daily challenge information is for 'today's UTC' date, implying time-dependent data.

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 that conveys the essential content without wasted words. Every element serves a 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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource count, IDs, and date-sensitive challenge info. However, 'daily challenge information' is somewhat vague about what fields or format are returned, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies here.

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 states the action ('List'), resource ('Mind Arcade games'), and specific output content ('six available games, their IDs, and today's UTC daily challenge information'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like arcade_read_game, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus arcade_challenges, arcade_read_game, or other siblings. The intended use is only implicit from the verb 'List'.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful context about the daily leaderboard being UTC-based and the existence of a free-play mode, but it does not disclose details like return format, ordering, or what happens when no day is provided.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key modal distinctions without redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with clear annotations and a small schema, the description covers the essential choices: game and mode. The only notable omission is guidance on the day parameter, but the schema's date pattern and optionality partially fill that 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'free-play' and 'UTC daily' to the mode parameter and 'one game' to the required game parameter, but it does not explain the optional day parameter or how its absence is interpreted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('free-play or UTC daily leaderboard for one game'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like arcade_read_game or arcade_games by naming the leaderboard and its two modes.

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 description makes the tool's context clear: use it to fetch a leaderboard for a game in free-play or daily mode. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer correct usage.

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 adds valuable behavioral context: moves are persisted, cannot be undone, and depend on the current revision. This helps the agent treat the call as consequential. It does not mention output or error behavior, but the irreversibility warning is a strong disclosure.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by essential caveats, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutating tool with a complex move schema and no output schema, the description lacks any statement about the response shape, error conditions, or how to obtain a valid session and revision. It partially compensates by telling the agent to re-read game state if the revision is stale, but significant operational context is missing.

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 does not explain sessionId, sessionToken, or the move structure itself. It only partially clarifies the revision parameter through the stale-revision guidance. The rich move schema is self-explanatory, but the description adds little parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply one validated move at the current revision.' The title and name align, and the action is easily distinguished from siblings like arcade_read_game or arcade_start_game.

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 description gives clear contextual guidance by warning about stale revisions and instructing the agent to read the game state again before retrying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the usage context is reasonably clear.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds the useful context that the data is 'public' and consists of 'submitted results'. However, it does not disclose what is returned, whether the profile includes metadata, or any limitations beyond the annotation-provided hints.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is slightly awkward in phrasing ('public submitted results') but remains compact and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simple, read-only, one-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations cover safety and scope, and the description identifies the resource. The main gaps are lack of usage guidance and parameter clarification, but these are minor for this low-complexity 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?

The input schema has one required accountId with a pattern, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameter's meaning or format. It does not mention accountId at all, leaving the agent to rely solely on the parameter name and pattern.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public submitted results for an AI player account'), making its core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like arcade_start_game or arcade_make_move, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly read-oriented arcade_leaderboard or arcade_read_game.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcade_leaderboard or arcade_read_game. The 'public' qualifier hints at access expectations, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion information.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about 'public-safe' state and the session-scoped access, which goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what subset of data is returned and the security model. No contradiction.

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, no fluff, the core action is front-loaded. The scope constraint is stated immediately after the verb. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given it's a simple read tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what is read, the security scoping, and the read-only nature (via annotations). It does not describe return format or error behavior, but for a read-only state fetch this is acceptable.

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 0% – neither parameter has a description in the schema. The description mentions the sessionToken grants access only to that session, which gives meaning to the token, but it never explains sessionId. With low coverage, the description should compensate for both parameters; it only partially covers one.

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 states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'public-safe state of a game session', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like arcade_make_move (write) and arcade_start_game (mutates). The scope is explicitly tied to the session token.

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 description implies use for reading without side effects ('public-safe', 'Read'), and the sibling set makes the distinction clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, only that the token grants access to that session.

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 mark the tool as read-only and not open-world, and the description adds the context that the playbook is 'public', implying no authentication. This is useful but does not go beyond basic safety traits; no rate limits or additional side effects are 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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word 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 simple one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the source (public AI playbook) and scope (one game), and the schema supplies valid values, so no critical information is missing.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but merely says 'one game'. It does not explain the meaning of the game parameter beyond what the property name and enum already convey, adding almost no semantic 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?

The title and description clearly state the tool reads a game's rules from the public AI playbook, identifying a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling arcade_read_game, so it stops short of 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_read_game or arcade_games. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 signal readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds the auth prerequisite for daily mode and the resume-instead-of-restart behavior, which are not visible in the schema. It does not elaborate on openWorldHint or what happens if a game is already active, but it goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 no filler: the first states the core action and variants, the second adds the key daily-mode constraint. 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?

The mode logic is well covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what a successful start returns or what happens when a game is already in progress. Given the tool's state-changing nature, these are meaningful omissions.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the role of mode and accountToken, but is silent on the name parameter and on how game selection interacts with modes, so the compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('game play'), then clearly distinguishes guest free play from authenticated free/daily play. The action is distinct from siblings like arcade_make_move and arcade_read_game.

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 a concrete rule: daily mode requires an account token and resumes the account's current UTC-day attempt, so an agent knows when to choose daily over free. It does not explicitly list when to avoid this tool in favor of a sibling, so it stops short of a 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 flag non-read, destructive behavior; the description adds that the action exposes account name, verified result, and replay on a public profile and depends on operatorApproval/ALLOW_SCORE_SUBMISSION. It does not mention irreversibility or full side-effect scope, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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: the first states the action/effect, the second states prerequisites. Every phrase adds information, and the key behavior is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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 destructive public write with four opaque tokens and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and approval requirements, but omits token provenance/meaning and does not say what response to expect or when to prefer sibling read tools. It is usable but leaves gaps an agent must infer.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies operatorApproval=true and alludes to account ownership and the server flag ALLOW_SCORE_SUBMISSION, but leaves sessionId, accountToken, and sessionToken roles implicit. This is partial compensation, not complete parameter documentation.

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 specific verb 'Publishes' and concrete payload (account name, verified result, game-move replay) onto a public profile. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling read/play tools. The title reinforces the action, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 description implies this is the final score-submission step and lists preconditions (operator approval, account ownership, server flag), but it never states when to call it relative to game play or which alternative to use for reading results. Usage context must be inferred from the title and sibling names, so guidance is only implicit.

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