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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: a fixed count of seven games and that challenge data is scoped to today in UTC, which hints at a time-sensitive, non-paginated result. It still doesn't describe the return shape or whether results are cached/static.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource come first, and the returned payload is described in the same breath.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does name the main contents (games, IDs, daily challenge info). It stops short of describing structure or the challenge fields, so an agent knows what it gets but not the shape.

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 disambiguate beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is missing.

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 ('List') and resource ('games') plus what is returned: IDs and today's UTC daily challenge info. However, it does not differentiate from siblings, and the mention of 'daily challenge information' overlaps conceptually with arcade_challenges, leaving a small ambiguity about which tool owns that data.

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 and no named alternatives. With ten siblings including arcade_read_game, arcade_challenges, and arcade_rules, an agent gets no signal on when to reach for this listing versus those 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming two distinct leaderboard modes and noting the daily one is UTC-based, but says nothing about error cases, empty boards, or result ordering.

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 the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title beyond what adds meaning.

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 0% parameter documentation, more was needed: whether day is required for the daily mode, what the board returns, and how many entries. The description covers the core intent but leaves those operational questions open.

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 carry the load. It partially does: 'free-play or UTC daily' maps onto the mode enum (free/daily) and 'one game' matches the game enum, but the day parameter is never explained (its format is only conveyed by the schema pattern), nor is the default mode=daily called out.

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 ('Read') and resource ('leaderboard'), and narrows scope to 'one game' plus the two leaderboard flavors. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arcade_read_replay or arcade_public_profile implicitly, but never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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: an agent can infer you call this when you want a leaderboard, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over arcade_challenges, arcade_public_profile, or arcade_read_replay. No prerequisites or exclusions are 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: moves are persisted, cannot be undone, and stale revisions require re-reading state before retrying. It does not cover error handling for invalid moves or authentication details, but the key mutation and concurrency behavior is well 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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. The critical constraint, applying a move at the current revision, is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds actionable behavioral information.

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 description covers the most important behavioral facts for a mutation tool: persistence, irreversibility, and stale-revision handling. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, it leaves the complex move format and session parameters to be inferred from the raw schema. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with this level of input complexity.

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 there are four required parameters, including a complex polymorphic move object. The description only clarifies that revision must be current and that stale revisions require re-reading state; it does not explain sessionId, sessionToken, or the move structure and validation rules. This is insufficient compensation for the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply one validated move at the current revision.' This clearly distinguishes making a move from sibling operations like reading game state or starting a game. However, it does not explicitly name or compare itself against any sibling tool.

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 gives clear context for use: the move must be applied at the current revision, and if the revision is stale the agent should read the game state again before retrying. This provides a concrete recovery path without explicitly naming the sibling tool for reading state. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, the UTC-day unlock gate, but says nothing about what happens when a replay is still locked (error vs empty), nor about pagination or size of the returned states.

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 and followed by the gating rule; there is no filler. It could arguably be a touch more specific without becoming verbose, but nothing in it 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 should characterize the return value, and 'saved states' remains vague (states of what, at what granularity). For a read-only single-param tool it is minimally viable, but the locked-replay behavior and result shape are left to inference.

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 required resultId with 0% schema description coverage and no pattern documentation in the description. The phrase 'for a published result' loosely ties the parameter to a published result ID, which is marginal added meaning over the bare schema.

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 (read) and resource (saved states for a published result), and the title adds 'public game replay'. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling arcade_read_game, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 usage via the unlock rule ('Daily replays unlock after the UTC challenge day ends'), which is a genuine precondition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never names an alternative sibling tool for reading live/ongoing games.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the content is public and scoped to a single game; it says nothing about caching, staleness, or return size, so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations much.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the vague 'public AI playbook' phrasing costs a bit of clarity.

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 lookup with one enum parameter this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should at least indicate what the returned 'section' contains. The ambiguity with arcade_read_game is left unresolved.

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 one enum parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema lists valid values but explains nothing. The description's phrase 'one game' hints that the parameter is a single selector, but it adds no meaning about what a game identifier represents beyond the self-explanatory enum labels.

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 verb 'Read' and object 'the section for one game' identify a retrieval operation, but the resource is described obliquely as 'the public AI playbook' rather than as game rules. The sibling arcade_read_game and arcade_games exist, and nothing in the description distinguishes this tool from them, leaving an agent to 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say when to pick this over arcade_read_game (a very close sibling) or arcade_games, nor whether it is a prerequisite before arcade_start_game or arcade_make_move.

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 declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them — that daily mode authenticates and *resumes* the account's current UTC-day attempt rather than creating a new one. It still omits what a repeat free-mode start does and what the call returns.

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 filler, and the guest/authenticated split is front-loaded before the daily-mode constraint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 should say what a successful start yields (session handle? initial game state?), and it should clarify the role of the 'name' field for guest play. It covers the auth/mode story well but leaves the invocation and return contract partially implicit.

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 carry the burden. It explains the semantics of 'mode' and 'accountToken' (required for daily), but never mentions the 'name' parameter or enumerates/describes the 'game' values, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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+resource ('Start ... play') and immediately disambiguates the two operating modes (guest free play vs. authenticated free/daily play). It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings (arcade_read_game, arcade_games) but never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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 the condition that selects daily mode ('requires an account token') and the resume behavior, which tells the agent when daily is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives such as arcade_create_account for obtaining the token, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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.