Coronet Arcade

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response is structured as titled steps and deliberately excludes puzzle answers, which is a content/return-shape trait the annotations do not express. It stops short of describing length or formatting details, so not a full 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct load: purpose, output format, argument disambiguation, and sibling routing. The purpose leads and no sentence is redundant.

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 read-only, single-enum-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what it returns (titled steps), what it withholds (puzzle answers), and how it relates to the other two tools. Coverage is strong, though it says nothing about the step content depth or ordering guarantees.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema coverage including an enum, the baseline is 3. The description goes further by disambiguating the argument ('Required game is a game id, not a board'), guarding against a plausible confusion between game identifiers and board identifiers that the schema text only partly addresses.

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 and resource ('Explain one game's rules and controls') and specifies the output shape ('as titled steps'). It also draws a hard boundary against the sibling tools by clarifying it 'never' returns a puzzle answer, so an agent can tell it apart from open_daily without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit positive trigger ('Use this to teach a game') and then names both alternatives with their roles: list_dailies to browse today's puzzles and open_daily to play. Nothing about when to prefer this tool over its siblings is left 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. Description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses the data volume (thirteen puzzles), fields returned (blurbs, exact ids), and crucially that no answers are included. Doesn't state pagination or formatting, but for a zero-param listing with rich annotations this is strong.

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 clauses, front-loaded with what it lists, then the exclusion (no answers), then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with zero waste.

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 no-param, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, what it omits, and how it differs from siblings. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain params and appropriately doesn't; it instead clarifies the content of the returned list.

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 (today's thirteen puzzles) plus what each entry contains (blurbs, exact daily ids), and explicitly notes what is excluded (No answers). Distinguishes from siblings open_daily and get_rules by describing the non-opening, non-explaining listing behavior.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: use open_daily to play one or the hub, and get_rules to explain a game without opening it. This gives clear when-to-use vs alternatives, with the list_dailies role (discovery) implied by contrast.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real context beyond them: progress stays in the widget and does not sync to the website, and the agent must not reveal solutions. That state-locality and output-constraint disclosure is valuable for a tool whose name could imply a networked fetch.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, then the state caveat, then the routing to alternatives. No filler; every sentence changes agent behavior.

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, zero-required tool with full schema coverage and a rich annotation set, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing. The description also covers the non-obvious side effects (local-only progress) that the schema and annotations cannot express.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented with its enum and default in the schema. The description's 'game defaults to hub' and 'pass a game id' restate the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb (open) and resource (a playable daily / the thirteen-puzzle hub), and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (list_dailies, get_rules). An agent can distinguish it from both siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly gives the conditional: pass a game id to open that board, omit it (or pass 'hub') for the hub. It also states when NOT to use it — use list_dailies to browse and get_rules to explain a game instead of opening it.

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