Agent Arcade Protocol 5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the dual auth path (credential argument or Authorization header) and a credential-handling guarantee (never in URLs, never echoed in errors), plus the P4 self-certification boundary.

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 tight clauses with the purpose front-loaded, then auth mechanics, then the safety guarantee. Dense but largely waste-free; the only cost is unexplained shorthand (P4/P5) that a reader must already know.

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?

Annotations cover safety and there is no output schema, but the description never indicates what the returned "next author step" looks like or how the caller should act on it, leaving the response shape undefined for a status-style 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single credential parameter is already documented as a write-only private key, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the alternative of configuring the connection Authorization header, which the schema does not mention.

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 concrete verb+resource: reading the caller's "exact next author step" within the author workflow (upload through P5). This is distinguishable from sibling write tools like submit_author_action and from preview_author_step, though it relies on undefined workflow-phase jargon (P4/P5) and does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 (check your current authoring step) and one boundary fact is given ("the author cannot self-certify P4"), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, nor any pointer to alternatives such as preview_author_step, certification_status, or idempotency_status.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine auth context: the credential may be passed as an argument or via the Authorization header, and credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors. It does not describe the return shape or pagination.

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 action, then the auth requirement and security guarantee. Every sentence carries information, though 'terminal P3 replay' could be tightened to be more self-explanatory.

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 convey something about what a replay read returns, and it does not. The credential story is well covered, but the required 'id' semantics and the meaning of 'P3'/'terminal' remain unexplained for a tool operating in a crowded replay namespace.

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 50%: the credential param carries a description but the required 'id' param is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description clarifies credential handling but never says what 'id' identifies, so it only partially compensates for the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read your terminal P3 replay.' An agent knows this retrieves a replay artifact, but 'terminal P3' is unexplained jargon and the definition does nothing to distinguish it from sibling readers like play_replay, public_replays, or certification_replay.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling replay/state tools. The only guidance is about supplying the credential (argument vs Authorization header), which is invocation detail rather than usage context or exclusions.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: credential handling (argument or Authorization header), where permissions live ("canonical handler"), and a security guarantee that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors. This is meaningful added disclosure, though no rate limits or return behavior are described.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no obvious padding. However, the two auth sentences dominate while the actual function ("P3 state") stays under-explained, so the emphasis is somewhat misallocated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what "P3 state" actually returns, which it does not. For a low-complexity read-only tool the auth details are adequate, but the agent still cannot tell what observing this state yields.

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 50%: the credential param has its own description, but the required id param has none. The description explains the credential param's two supply mechanisms (argument or Authorization header), which adds value, but says nothing about what id should be. Baseline 3 for partial-coverage schema plus some added credential 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?

"Observe your own P3 state" gives a clear verb (observe) but the resource ("P3 state") is undefined jargon that doesn't obviously map to the tool name author_test_state. With many sibling state/status tools (author_status, certification_state, play_state, certification_replay), nothing distinguishes this one from them. The purpose is only vaguely inferable.

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 addresses authentication mechanics (credential argument vs Authorization header) but never says when to use this tool versus siblings like author_status or certification_state, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. No usage routing is provided.

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, and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('actual published', 'public inspection only'), but does not disclose pagination behavior or that the catalog mutates across calls – that warning lives only in the offset schema field.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'choose a game yourself' is slightly clipped but overall efficient.

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 five-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is on the thin side – it doesn't convey what the returned entries look like or how 'trusted evidence' ordering is determined. Rich annotations carry the safety side, but the return-shape gap remains.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It does map filter-by-text (q), genre, and sort, covering three of five parameters, but adds no meaning for the enum values or the interaction between limit and the canonical catalog window. Baseline 3 fits.

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 clear verb and resource ('Read the actual published game catalog') plus the filter/sort dimensions. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'store', which an agent could easily confuse with browse_store.

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?

'Public inspection only; choose a game yourself' implies a browse-for-yourself use case but names no alternative and gives no explicit when-to-use vs store, game_details, or public_replays. Usage is only weakly implied.

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 (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the remaining burden is light. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors, which tells the agent it is safe to pass secrets and how they are handled.

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, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the authentication mechanics. 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?

For a read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the credential handling is well addressed. But with no output schema, the description should say something about what the 'terminal replay' returns or its format, and it provides no disambiguation against the many sibling replay/certification readers, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 50%: the credential parameter is documented in the schema, but 'id' has none. The description compensates for credential by explaining the two auth paths (argument vs. Authorization header), but says nothing about what 'id' identifies, leaving its semantics to be inferred from the phrase 'token-scoped certification'.

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 (terminal replay) scoped to a token-scoped certification, which is more precise than a generic 'get'. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely-related siblings like certification_state, certification_task, or play_replay, so the agent must infer which of the many certification/replay readers applies here.

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 explains HOW to authenticate (credential argument or Authorization header) but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives relative to the crowded certification_* and *_replay families. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over certification_state or play_replay.

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. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the session is token-scoped, the credential is private, and credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors. That security/side-channel disclosure goes beyond the annotations, though return behavior is still unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the auth mechanics. Little waste, though the credential/header instruction could be trimmed into a single imperative.

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 observation tool with no output schema, the description never hints at what the certification state contains, so an agent cannot anticipate the result. Annotations cover the safety profile and one of two params is documented, so this is adequate but leaves a real gap around return content.

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 50%: the credential parameter is documented as "Private v5c_ capability for one assigned version" while the required id is not described at all. The description reinforces that the credential is private and token-scoped, adding marginal meaning, but does not clarify what the id identifies (session id, version id, etc.), leaving half the parameter surface uncompensated.

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: "Observe your token-scoped independent certification session." An agent can tell this is a read/observe operation on a certification session. However, it never differentiates itself from the crowded certification family (certify_status, certification_task, certification_replay, claim_certification), so the boundary is left to inference.

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 second sentence gives an authentication instruction (credential argument vs Authorization header), which is setup guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this tool applies versus certify_status or certification_task, and no exclusions or prerequisites for the session itself.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the two credential-passing mechanisms and the security guarantee that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors, but says nothing about response shape, error behavior, or token expiry.

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 purpose, and each one carries information (scope, auth methods, privacy guarantee). No filler, though the auth guidance could be condensed into the schema rather than the description.

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, idempotent tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the annotations plus description cover enough to invoke it correctly. It is not complete, though: the description omits what a 'task' contains, error behavior for an expired or out-of-scope token, and why no parameters are required.

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 100%, so the credential parameter is already documented as a writeOnly private v5c_ capability, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the alternate Authorization-header path for supplying it, a modest clarification rather than new semantic detail about the value itself.

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 ('the exact task'), scoped by the v5c_ token, so an agent knows this is a scoped read of a single task. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like certification_state, certification_status, or certification_replay, leaving the agent to infer which certification-read tool applies.

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 never states when to use this tool rather than certification_state/certification_status, nor any prerequisite such as already holding a one-version token. It only explains how to authenticate, which is parameter guidance, not usage context.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Return,' implying a read, but the phrase 'claim and completion flow' suggests it may create or advance a claim — the description never clarifies whether this mutates state, what permissions it needs, or whether it is idempotent. This ambiguity is significant for a certification tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no filler and the outcome front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is achieved by omitting meaning rather than by compressing it.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about what comes back. It never defines 'P4 claim,' what the 'completion flow' consists of, or in what order results appear — leaving an agent unable to interpret the return value at all.

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 the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 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 verb 'Return' is clear enough, but the resource is opaque jargon: 'the independent P4 claim and completion flow' means nothing without domain knowledge of what P4 is or what a 'completion flow' contains. With siblings like claim_certification, certify_status, certification_state, and certification_task in the namespace, an agent cannot tell what distinguishes this tool from them.

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 statement, no alternative named, and no condition under which an agent should pick certify_flow over claim_certification or certify_status. The description is purely a restatement of an undefined output.

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 safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: credentials must be passed as an argument or header, are never placed in URLs, and are never echoed in errors, plus the rule that it never assigns your own game. This is useful beyond the structured 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the remaining two sentences are short and non-redundant. Minor waste in the credential-handling sentence, which reads as security boilerplate, but overall tight.

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 annotations covering returns, the description should say what the fetched task contains or what happens when no eligible task exists, and it does not. The mismatch between the 'status' name and the 'read a task' behavior also leaves the caller guessing about the return 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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the alternative of supplying the credential via an Authorization header rather than the argument, which is marginally additive but does not refine the parameter's format or constraints beyond the 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 and resource ('Read one eligible task') and adds a scoping discriminator ('from another author; never assigns your own game') that separates it from the certification siblings. The name 'certify_status' implies a status query while the body describes task retrieval, so intent is clear but slightly misaligned with the name.

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 only guidance is authentication mechanics ('supply credential or configure the Authorization header'), not when to choose this tool over certification_task, start_certification, or certification_state. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-repeatable operation. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the one-time return of a private v5c_ token and credential handling rules (not in URLs, not echoed in errors). It still does not explain what the destructive claim consumes or what happens if the version is not the recommended one.

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, with the core action front-loaded before the return value and credential notes. Every sentence carries distinct information (action, output, auth, security), though the density of unexplained jargon slightly hurts readability.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and half-documented params, the description covers the token return and credential handling but omits what the claim destroys, error/rejection behavior, and the meaning of "P4." Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: the credential param is documented in the schema, but version_id has no description. The description partially compensates by explaining credential supply and the alternative Authorization header, and by framing version_id as "the independent P4 version recommended to you." It does not clarify version_id's format or validity beyond the schema's pattern, so the baseline 3 fits.

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 concrete verb ("Claim") and a resource ("the independent P4 version"), and scopes it ("only ... recommended to you"), which separates it from generic siblings like start_certification. However, the key terms "P4" and "v5c_ token" are opaque jargon that an agent cannot resolve from the text, so the actual purpose is only partially clear.

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 a scoping constraint ("only the independent P4 version recommended to you") but no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many certification siblings such as start_certification, certify_flow, or certification_task. No preconditions 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read operation, but there is no statement about permissions, side effects, or whether the flow depends on prior state set by prepare_create/register_flow.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the extreme brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than true conciseness. The undefined 'P0-P5' label makes the sentence feel terse rather than efficient.

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 annotations, the description is the only source of meaning, and it never explains what the 'author flow' is or what 'P0-P5' refers to. For an agent deciding among ~50 siblings, this is inadequate 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies per the zero-parameter rule.

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 ('return') and a resource ('author flow'), which is better than a tautology. However, 'P0-P5' is unexplained jargon, and nothing distinguishes this flow from the many sibling flows (register_flow, release_flow, feedback_flow, certify_flow), so an agent cannot tell which flow this returns without external knowledge.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the numerous sibling flow tools. The agent is left to guess the context in which this tool is appropriate.

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, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: the challenges are UTC-scoped, shared, finite, governed by one-attempt rules, and effectively open practice because replays are public. That is real behavioral disclosure not present in the structured fields.

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 tight sentences with the core retrieval object front-loaded and the interpretive note second. No filler, no restating of the title or annotations.

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-argument read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough to know what is returned conceptually (today's challenges and their attempt rules). A brief note on freshness or return shape would push it higher, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so by the stated baseline this dimension scores 4. There is no argument surface for the description to illuminate, and it does not mislead 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (today's UTC shared finite-puzzle challenges plus one-attempt rules), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as play_challenges or public_replays, 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'one-attempt rules' and 'open practice, not a closed-book contest' suggest this is consulted before or during a practice attempt. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of play_challenges, play_state, or public_replays, leaving routing 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 destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'Irreversibly declare.' Beyond the annotations it adds genuine behavioral context: evidence is excluded from trusted growth, it never promotes identity or targets another agent, and it explains credential handling (private argument or Authorization header, never in URLs or error output).

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 dense sentences that front-load the action and follow with scope, side effects, and credential handling. Every sentence carries information; phrasing is slightly loaded but not padded.

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, non-idempotent mutation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision inputs: irreversibility, identity scoping, exclusion from trusted growth, and credential transport. It is nearly complete, with only the traffic_class parameter semantics left thin.

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 50%: the credential parameter is documented in the schema, while traffic_class carries only a single-value enum with no description. The description adds value by explaining the credential can alternatively be supplied via the Authorization header and is never echoed, but the traffic_class semantics beyond the enum value remain unstated.

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 action ('declare') and a specific resource ('only your own authenticated identity manual_probe'), and scopes it tightly to a single identity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling identity tools (register_agent, verify_agent, trust_record), so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage context is implied through 'for internal testing' and 'Excludes its evidence from trusted growth,' which signals this is a probe that deliberately does not feed the trusted pipeline. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like trust_record or register_agent, so guidance is only partial.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the credential only matters for active rollout candidates, and credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors. It still says nothing about size limits or result behavior for the returned projections.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the rest is dense jargon-heavy prose ('rules_projection/audit_summary', 'assigned caller') that takes several reads. It is compact, but the credential sentence is repeated in substance and the default projection is mentioned without grounding in the schema.

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 with 4 params at 25% schema coverage the description carries real burden. It covers auth and the include semantics adequately but leaves slug/versionId meaning and the shape of the rules_projection/audit_summary/learning outputs unexplained.

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 only 25% (just the credential field), so the description has to compensate. It does clarify include's enum effect and the default projection, and reinforces the credential's scope, but slug and versionId get no semantics at all beyond their names.

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+resource: 'Read pinned public-version rules', with 'pinned public-version' narrowing scope beyond a generic version fetch. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like game_details or protocol_index, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 conditional usage rules: public versions need no credential while 'assigned active candidates require the assigned caller' and a private aa_ credential or connection Authorization. It also explains when to set include=learning/audit and what the default projection is. No alternative tool is named for related read tasks, which keeps it 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It hints at one trait — the resource is 'authenticated', implying auth is required — and the verb 'Return' implies a read. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination, output shape, whether the flow mutates, or what 'author-response flow' state actually contains.

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 sentence, zero filler, with the resource named up front. It is not bloated — if anything it is under-specified rather than over-long, so structure is fine while completeness suffers separately.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this one-liner is insufficient for a tool whose entire value is returning a named artifact. An agent cannot tell what a 'feedback and author-response flow' returns or how to scope it via target_type.

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% for the single optional enum parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions 'platform/game' in prose but never names target_type, never explains the two enum values' meaning, and never states that omitting it is allowed or what the default behavior is.

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 (Return) and a specific resource (authenticated Protocol 5 platform/game feedback and author-response flow). This is meaningfully more concrete than the many sibling '*_flow' tools, though the term 'flow' itself is unexplained jargon. No explicit sibling contrast, but the 'feedback and author-response' qualifier is distinctive enough to disambiguate.

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 only asserts what the tool returns; it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the ~45 siblings (e.g., traffic_status, game_details, author_status). An agent must infer entirely when this is the right call.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the word 'public' plus the decision-support framing; it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure behavior when a slug is unknown.

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 with no filler; every word contributes to scope and timing. Nothing 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate for the safe-read profile but leaves the key input unexplained. An agent must infer from the name that 'slug' selects the game, which is a meaningful gap for a required identifier.

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 never mentions the single 'slug' parameter, what it identifies, or how to obtain it. The regex pattern in the schema constrains format but not meaning, so the description fails to compensate for the 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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Read public game rules', which tells the agent this is a read of game metadata/rules keyed off a game. However, it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like exact_game_version or browse_store, and 'rules' is narrower than the tool name 'game_details' implies.

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?

'before deciding whether to play' gives explicit situational context for when to call this tool, i.e., as a pre-play evaluation step. It names no alternative tool and gives no exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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, and the description adds real context beyond them: the not-found-doesn't-mean-failed caveat and the credential-handling guarantee (never in URLs, never echoed in errors). These are genuine behavioral disclosures a caller needs.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the recovery caveat, then the credential note. Every sentence carries information, though the credential sentence reads as a slightly tangential addendum.

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 and no annotations describing the response, so the description should say more about what a status/recovery call returns (e.g. whether it yields the session id or a settled/in-flight state). The not-found caveat helps but the return contract is left 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 coverage is 50%: the credential parameter is documented, but idempotency_key only carries a pattern. The description compensates somewhat by explaining the credential can be supplied as an argument or via the Authorization header, but adds no meaning for the key itself. Baseline 3 fits.

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 (recover) and resource (uncertain session creation) keyed by Idempotency-Key, which clearly frames it as a status/recovery check distinct from the many create_* siblings. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

"Recover an uncertain session creation" plus the note that "not-found does not prove an in-flight request cannot still settle" gives the agent clear conditions for when to call this and how to interpret the result. No explicit exclusions or named sibling alternatives, so not 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'No registration or actions' and 'public', which is consistent but largely restates the read-only nature. The non-stability of the catalog is disclosed only in the schema ('Catalogs may change between calls'), not the description.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose is stated first and the alternative routing follows immediately. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return semantics; 'compact public live-session catalog' implies a list but does not describe its fields or shape. Input parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the gap is confined to the undocumented response.

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 limit and offset are already fully documented, including the caveat about the canonical window and snapshot drift. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Read a compact public live-session catalog') and names the sibling it is not (play_state for 'one public projection'), so an agent can separate the catalog-list tool from the single-projection tool. 'Compact public live-session catalog' is somewhat abstract but the scope is clear.

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 the agent: use this for the catalog, use play_state for a single projection, and 'No registration or actions' clarifies it is a non-writing read. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not/exclusion beyond the single alternative named.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the credential/auth requirement, the header alternative, and the security guarantee that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the timing constraint, then the auth mechanics. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, this covers the key agent needs: when to call it, how to authenticate, and how the credential is handled. It stops short of describing what the 'assignment' object contains or the format rules for slug.

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 only 50% (slug has no description), so the description has to compensate, and it does: it clarifies that 'credential' is a private key supplied either as an argument or via an Authorization header. It adds little about the required 'slug' beyond what the schema pattern enforces.

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 ('Read the exact-version assignment and its Gameplay Contract'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many nearby play_* siblings (start_play, prepare_play, play_state), so an agent still has to infer its place in the sequence.

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 an implied workflow cue ('before accepting a session'), which tells the agent roughly when this fires. It names no alternative tool and no condition that would select a sibling over this one, so usage is only implied rather than spelled out.

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 behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: that existing trusted rankings apply and that no campaign-specific scores, identities or actions are produced, which sets expectations about output scope. Return format and pagination remain unstated.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the read scope is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows. Nothing redundant or misplaced.

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 what comes back, and it only partially does so (rankings apply, no campaign-specific outputs). The undocumented 'campaign' parameter is the biggest gap, leaving an agent guessing about filtering behavior.

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% for the single 'campaign' parameter, so the schema provides only a name and maxLength. The description never explains what the campaign argument filters or whether it is optional, and its mention of 'no campaign-specific scores' arguably muddies rather than clarifies the parameter's role.

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 ('Read published per-game PLAY challenges and voluntary inspection links'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It implicitly separates itself from daily_challenges via 'per-game' and from authoring/action tools via 'published', but never names a sibling, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 a weak negative scope signal ('no campaign-specific scores, identities or actions are generated'), which implies this is not the tool for campaign-scoped work, but no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative is named. Usage is only implied by the read/published framing.

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 and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: results are scoped to the current version, and empty boards are included. It still omits return shape, ordering/ranking semantics and pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the comparison caveat follows immediately as the most decision-relevant qualifier.

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 3-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves filtering behavior (what happens with no filters), result ordering, and the meaning of 'current-version' as a boundary unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameter meaning. It maps the three params conceptually to game, difficulty and puzzle (challenge_id), but adds no format, optionality or defaulting semantics. All three parameters are optional with no required ones, which the description never clarifies.

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+resource: 'Read current-version player boards.' An agent understands this returns ranking/leaderboard data. It doesn't name a competing sibling, but no sibling in the list is an obvious leaderboard equivalent, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 clause 'Only same-game, same-difficulty and same-puzzle scores compare' implies you should scope a query by those dimensions, which hints at usage. However, it never states when to call this versus alternatives (e.g. public_replays, live_sessions), nor whether params are optional or how an unscoped call behaves.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the replay is 'deterministic' and 'public' and requires a natural terminal state, which is modest extra context but does not explain error behavior or what a missing/expired replay looks like.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, and the trailing 'after natural terminal' clause is obscure but not 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?

For a simple one-param read tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the id semantics and the sibling-routing question unanswered, which matters given six similarly named play/certification replay and state tools.

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 required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It never says what the id identifies (a session? an assignment? a game?) or its format, leaving the single parameter semantically opaque.

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 has a clear verb (Read) and resource (public replay), and adds qualifiers 'deterministic' and 'after natural terminal'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like play_state, play_status, public_replays, or certification_replay, and 'natural terminal' is unexplained jargon.

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?

'after natural terminal' hints at a timing condition, but no alternatives are named and no when-not guidance is given. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would call play_replay instead of play_state or public_replays.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the credential requirement per case and states that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors, which is security-relevant behavioral context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the credential condition and the security note. No filler, though the phrasing is abstract enough that a little more specificity could have replaced some of the terseness.

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 indicate what 'state' observation yields, and it does not; return shape and scope of the returned state are left unstated. It also omits differentiation from the many sibling play_* tools, so for a 2-param read tool this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 50% (the credential param is documented there), so the description must carry some weight. It explains what the credential is for and when it is required, partially compensating, but the required id parameter's meaning is only implied by 'session or participant-visible state' and gets no explicit semantics.

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 (Observe) and resource (public session / participant-visible state), so an agent knows it is a read of session state rather than a mutation. However it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling play_status, leaving the agent to guess which observation tool to pick.

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 one genuine conditional: public versions need no credential, while assigned active candidates require the aa_ credential or connection Authorization. That is useful when-to-use guidance for authentication, but there is no guidance on choosing this over play_status/play_replay or on when the tool is inapplicable.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine non-structured context: that credentials may come from the argument or an Authorization header, and that they are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors. That is useful disclosure beyond the annotation set.

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 what is read, then auth mechanics, then a security guarantee. No filler, though the middle sentence is more operational guidance than purpose and slightly dilutes the opening.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the returned content (game version, rules, session continuation), and the safety profile is fully carried by annotations. For a single optional-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by documenting an alternative auth channel (the connection Authorization header) that the schema does not expose. It also reinforces the credential's private, non-URL nature, though that partially duplicates the schema's writeOnly/description text.

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?

It states a read verb and enumerates the payload (recommended exact-version game, rules, session continuation), so the resource is roughly identifiable. However, 'recommended exact-version game' is jargon that doesn't clearly differentiate this from sibling reads like play_state, play_assignment, or exact_game_version. The purpose is implied rather than crisply stated.

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 explains how to supply auth but never says when to call this versus play_state, play_assignment, or start_play, which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling list. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusion conditions are given, so usage must be inferred from the name.

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 full burden, and it does add real value by declaring the operation is 'side-effect-free' with 'No identity or storage' — effectively the safety profile. But it stops short of describing what the checks emit, failure semantics, or whether it blocks a later create.

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, front-loading the action and the no-side-effect guarantee. 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description ideally would state what the checks return or how results are surfaced. It covers the input contract and safety posture but leaves the outcome side thin for a validation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that 'draft' is the complete edited working_draft from prepare_create and 'campaign' must be preserved. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 (run checks) and resource (edited CREATE working_draft) and names the check families (P0-P2, renderer, originality). It implies a distinct role from prepare_create (which produces the draft) but never names that sibling, so differentiation requires inference.

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 phrase 'edited CREATE working_draft' implies the prepare_create -> edit -> preflight workflow, and the schema note ties 'draft' to prepare_create's output. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no guidance on sequencing relative to publish_game or other flow 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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the preflight is side-effect-free and that a valid flag gates registration, which are behavioral facts. However, it omits authentication needs, error behavior, rate limits, and what the scaffold contains.

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: the first states purpose and return, the second states a sequencing condition. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the jargon reduces clarity. The size and structure are appropriate for a brief preparatory tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is not sufficient to call the tool confidently. It does not explain what CREATE means, what the scaffold contains, how the campaign parameter influences the result, or what happens when valid=false. For a domain-specific preparatory tool, this leaves critical gaps.

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 single parameter 'campaign' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description provides no meaning, format, or usage guidance for this parameter. With schema coverage low, the description had to compensate but fails to do so.

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 specific but opaque domain terms ('CREATE', 'scaffold', 'preflight') without defining the action or resource in plain language. It states the return ('complete scaffold plus side-effect-free preflight'), which gives some purpose, but the core action remains ambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like preflight_create or create_flow.

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 only usage hint is 'Register only after valid=true, before upload,' which implies sequencing but not when to choose this tool over alternatives. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool guidance is provided, despite adjacent siblings like preflight_create and register_flow. The agent must infer this is a preparatory step.

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 full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it declares the operation is read-only, needs no identity, performs no writes, and selects/executes no moves. That is strong disclosure, though it says nothing about what is returned or any rate/consistency behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the read-only framing is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence largely restates the first's read-only claim from a different angle.

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 read tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers intent and safety but omits what slug/campaign must contain and what the read yields. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps an agent must guess around.

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% and neither 'slug' nor 'campaign' is described anywhere. The phrase 'one published game' loosely hints that slug identifies a game, but the meaning of campaign and the relationship between the two parameters is left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 ('Read one published game and the complete PLAY flow') and clarifies the non-mutating scope. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling (e.g. start_play or prepare_create), but 'without identity or writes' and 'No moves are selected or executed' distinguish it from action-executing 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?

It implies the usage context (a read-only look at the PLAY flow before committing to anything), which an agent can infer as a preflight/preparation step. However, it never names when to prefer this over start_play, play_state, or prepare_create, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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 destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the projection is anonymous, data-only, and does not store a session, solution, or certification evidence. That non-persistence guarantee goes beyond the structured hints and matters for an agent deciding whether to rely on the call. Return-shape behavior is left unstated, so not 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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation leads and the constraints follow. Minor issues: the 'up to24' typo and dense jargon ('public projection', 'certification evidence') slightly reduce readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably needn't explain return values, and it does cover the non-persistence profile. However, with two undocumented nested-object parameters and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough to construct a valid definition/gameplay_contract 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only illuminates two of the four params: 'one explicit author-chosen action' (action) and 'up to 24 prior actions' (prior_actions, matching the schema maxItems). The required 'definition' and 'gameplay_contract' objects are completely unexplained, leaving half the contract opaque.

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 operation: a 'draft simulation of exactly one explicit author-chosen action' with a bounded 'up to 24 prior actions' history. It is clearly a preview/simulation of a single author action rather than a persisted submission, though the phrase 'author step' and 'gameplay_contract' keep it somewhat opaque. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. submit_author_action), 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 negation clause ('no stored session, solution, automatic action or certification evidence') implies when-not-to-expect-persistence, and the 24-prior-action framing hints at the intended scenario. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance telling the agent to reach for preview_author_step over submit_author_action or author_test_replay.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Return' implies a non-destructive read and it discloses the content categories returned, which is useful, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, caching/staleness, or whether the data is static reference material.

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 with no filler; the resource being returned is named immediately after the verb.

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-param read with no output schema, the description should define what 'Protocol 5', 'release gates', and 'canonical links' actually contain or what shape the response has. It gives categories but no detail, leaving the agent to guess at the 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is called with no arguments.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Return' plus the specific artifacts 'Protocol 5 roles, release gates and canonical links'. It is far more informative than a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling reference tools such as release_readiness or publishing_contract, and 'Protocol 5' is left undefined.

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 stated prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative sibling tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a lookup-style reference call.

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=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the listing is 'compact' and, importantly, that it does NOT establish verified integrity or real-AI eligibility, warning the agent against over-reading results.

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 tight sentences with no padding, and the core purpose ('read a compact public terminal-session catalog') is front-loaded before the caveat. Efficient and well-ordered.

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, but 'compact public terminal-session catalog' plus the negative caveat give an adequate sense of what comes back, and both optional params are fully schema-documented. The only minor gap is return shape detail for the catalog entries themselves.

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%: limit and offset are fully documented in the schema, including the note that offset snapshots may change between calls. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (compact public terminal-session catalog), which is enough for an agent to identify it as a listing tool. It hints at the boundary with play_replay, but does not fully name the differentiation, so it falls short of a clean 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 sentence 'play_replay checks one complete replay' implies an alternative and the condition that separates listing from verification, but it never states explicitly when to reach for public_replays versus its siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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 destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the two credential-supply mechanisms (argument vs. Authorization header) and the guarantee that credentials never appear in URLs or error output.

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 opening clause is front-loaded with the purpose and the credential guidance is useful, but the middle sentences spend scarce space on unexplained P4/P5 jargon that conveys little to a caller. Three dense sentences with unearned terminology.

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, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description should clarify effects and preconditions. Instead it omits the eligibility criterion, the meaning of slug/version_id, and what the P4/P5 references actually mean, leaving real gaps for a call that can destroy state.

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 only 33% — just the credential parameter is documented. The description adds meaning for credential (argument or header) but says nothing about slug format or what version_id must refer to, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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+resource (publish an eligible version) is identifiable, but the core explanation is buried in opaque internal jargon ('canonical P5 replays and re-aggregates evidence', 'Never bypasses independent P4') that an agent cannot decode. No sibling tool is named to differentiate it from release_flow, upload_game, or publishing_contract.

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 phrase 'your exact eligible version' hints at a precondition but never states it explicitly, and there is no guidance on when to choose publish_game over siblings like release_flow or release_readiness. The credential sentence covers how to authenticate, not when to use the tool.

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 full disclosure burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only fetch, but it does not state whether authentication is required, the size/format of the payload, or whether the returned document is stable or version-pinned. It adds little behavioral context beyond the implied read.

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 no filler; the core action and object are front-loaded and 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?

For a no-param getter there is no output schema, so the description could reasonably explain what 'Protocol 5' is and what the returned document contains or how it should be used. As written it is minimal but not misleading.

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 no parameters (0 count, 100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 (Return) and resource (the Protocol 5 OpenAPI document), so the agent knows it retrieves a document. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling protocol_index, and the terms 'Protocol 5' and 'executable' are unexplained jargon that leave the exact artifact ambiguous.

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 call this versus alternatives such as protocol_index, release_flow, or publish_game. No prerequisites, no context triggering use, and no exclusions are stated.

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 destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: CREATE triggers an anonymous preflight step, and the tool deliberately stops short of solving proof or verifying — useful state-machine context 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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The phrasing is terse and jargon-heavy, 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves most parameters and the return/challenge format unexplained. It conveys the intent modes and a prerequisite but is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 only 17%, so the schema does not document name, model, campaign, or capabilities. The description names the intent values (PLAY/CREATE/CERTIFY), partially covering the enum, but adds no meaning for the remaining five parameters. Low coverage requires the description to compensate, and it does not.

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 action pair (accepts PLAY/CREATE/CERTIFY intents and creates a proof challenge), naming the three intent modes explicitly. It is distinguishable from siblings like preflight_create and verify_agent, though it does not name them. The verb+resource is clear.

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?

Implies usage via 'CREATE first completes anonymous preflight' (a prerequisite) and 'Does not solve proof or verify for you' (a scope boundary suggesting verify_agent handles verification). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to pick this over preflight_create/prepare_create, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether this mutates state, requires authentication, is idempotent, or what it returns. 'Register' vs 'Return' leaves the read/write semantics genuinely ambiguous for a tool with side-effect implications.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse rather than bloated, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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 tool with an undocumented enum parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent what the flow payload contains or how the two parameters interact.

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, but it never explains the four 'intent' enum values (play, create, certify, feedback) or the 'campaign' parameter beyond the vague phrase 'persistent campaign attribution'. An agent cannot determine valid intent usage from either source.

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 verb ('Return') and a named resource ('Protocol 5 AI identity flow'), but the resource is opaque jargon and the verb conflicts with the name 'register_flow', which implies registration rather than retrieval. It offers no differentiation from the many '*_flow' siblings such as create_flow, certify_flow, or feedback_flow.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative sibling to prefer. The intent enum hints at multiple usage contexts, but the description never explains how they map to calling this tool versus others.

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 full behavioral burden. It mentions 'immutable' (history cannot be changed) and 'evidence-gated' (rollback requires evidence), which are useful traits, but it does not clarify whether the tool mutates state, what evidence is needed, whether rollback is destructive, or what permissions are required.

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 wasted words, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity and structure. It front-loads 'Return' but does not separate the two distinct functions it implies.

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 the complexity of release flows and rollback operations, the description is far too sparse. It omits key information about the required 'slug', return values, evidence-gating mechanics, and whether the tool is read-only or mutating.

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 sole parameter 'slug' has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no meaning about what the slug represents (e.g., flow ID, release ID).

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 verb ('Return') and resources ('version history', 'rollback operations'), but it is ambiguous whether the tool actually performs rollbacks or merely returns information about them. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling tools like release_readiness or publishing_contract.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as release_readiness or certification_replay. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for invocation.

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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: credential handling (never in URLs, never echoed in errors) and the dual auth path (argument or Authorization header), which is valuable operational detail for a tool taking a secret.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the auth mechanics. Every sentence carries weight, though the credential sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for readability.

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 does not indicate what a readiness result looks like (pass/fail per P0-P4, evidence details), which an agent would want. It does cover the essential action, scope, and auth, so it is adequate but not fully complete for a verification 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%: only 'credential' carries a schema description, and the description usefully reinforces how to supply it. 'slug' and 'version_id' remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description compensates for the coverage gap only partially.

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 ('Recheck'), a concrete resource ('P0-P4 evidence'), and a scoping constraint ('for your exact version without publishing'). This distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like release_flow and publish_game, though it never names an alternative 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?

The phrase 'without publishing' implies the use case: verify readiness before a release rather than performing one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named, so the agent must infer that release_flow is the publishing counterpart.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context about credential handling and the guarantee that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors, but it never explains what 'starting a test' actually does or what state it mutates.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the security guarantee in the final sentence earns its place. The unexplained 'P3' term is the only real 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema and 33% parameter coverage, the description omits what starting the test produces or destroys and what success looks like. The credential guidance is helpful but does not fill the core behavioral 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 coverage is only 33% and only the credential parameter has a schema description. The description usefully clarifies that the credential may be passed as an argument or via the Authorization header (beyond the schema), but it leaves slug and version_id semantics to the schema's bare patterns.

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 'Start' is clear and the phrase 'on your own exact immutable version' ties the action to the version_id parameter, but 'P3' is unexplained jargon that leaves the actual resource ambiguous. It does nothing to differentiate itself from siblings like author_test_state, author_test_replay, or author_status.

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 says how to supply credentials but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as author_status or preview_author_step. No prerequisites or preconditions (e.g. whether a version must be prepared first) 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?

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value with credential-handling detail (argument vs. Authorization header, never placed in URLs or echoed in errors), but never explains what the destructive certification start actually does or what is consumed.

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 sentences with little redundancy, but the lead sentence is a prerequisite rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, and the opaque 'P4' term forces the reader to backtrack. Structure is acceptable but not optimally prioritized.

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, non-idempotent start tool with no output schema and only partial parameter descriptions, the definition leaves key questions unanswered: what certification start produces, what state it creates, and what 'independent P4' requires. The credential note helps, but the workflow outcome is absent.

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 only 33%: credential has an inline description while objective_summary and selected_success_condition have none. The description partially compensates by naming both required fields and explaining the credential can be supplied as an argument or via an Authorization header, but adds no format or length guidance beyond the 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?

The description implies a start action ('before starting independent P4') but never plainly states what the tool does or what 'independent P4' means. It spends its opening on a precondition (explaining the objective) rather than the action, so an agent must infer the purpose from the tool name.

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 a precondition ('explain the public objective and selected success condition before starting') and a credential-input choice, but does not say when this tool should be used versus siblings like claim_certification, certify_flow, or submit_certification_report. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description's repetition of idempotency is partly redundant. It earns credit for adding real context beyond the annotations: exact-version binding, credential handling via argument or Authorization header, and the guarantee that credentials never appear in URLs or error output.

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 sentences, each front-loaded with its main point: the action, the credential path, then the security guarantee. Dense but no filler; the credential sentence is arguably tangential to invocation but carries genuine security value.

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, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, 8 parameters, and 13% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits any explanation of the required fields, the meaning of ready_to_act, or what a session returns, leaving an agent under-equipped to call 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them and largely fails. It addresses only the credential parameter; the four required inputs (slug, accepted_version_id, ready_to_act, idempotency_key) are never explained, and the const:true / idempotency-format constraints are left undocumented.

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 (Create) and resource (session) with meaningful qualifiers (idempotent, exact-version) that distinguish it from a generic session starter. However, the phrase 'exact-version session' and 'action loop' are jargon that assumes platform familiarity, and no sibling is explicitly named, so an agent must infer its relationship to prepare_play on its own.

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?

'only after you prepare your own action loop' implies a prerequisite and ordering relative to the prepare_play sibling, which is useful sequencing guidance. But it never names prepare_play explicitly, gives no explicit when-not conditions, and doesn't clarify how it relates to play_status/play_state once a session exists.

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 supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about authentication, caching, rate limits, or whether 'published' implies a versioned/immutable snapshot. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves core behavior undisclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision — the one sentence it does contain is opaque jargon. Adequate in size, weak in payload.

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, so the description is the only place the return value could be characterized, and it does not say what an 'endpoint' response looks like. Combined with undefined terminology ('Protocol 5', 'store endpoint') and no annotations, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, 4 is appropriate; no param detail could add value 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 restates the tool name with jargon: 'store' becomes 'the published Protocol 5 store endpoint.' It names a verb ('Return') and a resource, but a reader cannot tell what a 'store endpoint' actually yields or how it differs from the sibling 'browse_store' or 'protocol_index'. The phrase is near-tautological without adding functional meaning.

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 call this versus the many adjacent discovery tools (browse_store, protocol_index, game_details). No prerequisites or context are given, so the agent must guess at the trigger condition. The single descriptive clause implies a read but does not indicate purpose.

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 destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value by explaining credential handling (argument vs Authorization header, never in URLs or error echoes), but it does not disclose the destructive consequences or that a stale revision will presumably be rejected.

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 tight sentences with the operation stated first and the credential constraint second; no padding. The only weakness is that the second sentence spends budget on auth mechanics while required-parameter meaning goes unaddressed.

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, non-idempotent mutation with a nested opaque action object and no output schema, the description should say what effect the action has, how revision conflicts behave, and what is returned. It covers only credential handling, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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 only 25% (credential alone), so the description carries most of the burden. It hints that revision must be 'current' and explains credential placement, but says nothing about the 'id' semantics or the opaque nested 'action' object, leaving three required parameters largely unexplained.

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 (Submit) and resource (one author-test action) scoped to the author-test domain, which separates it from submit_certification_action and submit_play_action by domain. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 versus submit_play_action/submit_certification_action, nor any reference to the surrounding flow (start_author_test, preview_author_step, author_status) that would tell an agent where this fits. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'author-test action'.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state irreversibly and is not safe to retry. The description adds genuine value by disclosing credential handling behavior (credentials never appear in URLs or error output) and the one-action-per-call constraint, but it never says what the submitted action does to the certification state or whether it can be undone.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The auth and credential-safety sentences earn their place, though the closing security note could be trimmed without loss.

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 annotations covering only the safety profile, the description is adequate on authentication but incomplete for a destructive, non-idempotent submission tool: it does not describe the effect of the action, the meaning of revision (optimistic-concurrency check?), or the expected response.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by clarifying the credential parameter supports two provisioning modes and is a private per-version capability. However, id, revision, and especially the free-form 'action' object (typed only as a generic object) remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Submit one ... action'), but 'P4 action' is unexplained jargon and 'externally chosen' is ambiguous without domain knowledge. It never distinguishes itself from the close siblings submit_author_action and submit_play_action, so an agent must infer which submission channel applies.

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 only guidance is authentication mechanics: pass the credential argument or set the Authorization header. There is no statement of when to use this versus submit_author_action, submit_play_action, or submit_certification_report, and no prerequisites such as needing a pre-existing certification 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=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: credential handling via argument or Authorization header, and the guarantee that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors. However, it does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive or what side effects occur, so the disclosure is partial.

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 are reasonably front-loaded with the core action, but the middle two ('Canonical independence checks remain unchanged') are cryptic and consume space without adding actionable meaning. Density is high but clarity-per-word is low.

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 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructiveHint=true write operation, the description leaves the majority of the contract unstated. It omits parameter meanings, return behavior, and what makes the operation destructive, so an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this confidently.

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 only 20% (credential is the sole documented property), so the description must compensate but largely does not. It references the credential and hints at content for the summaries ('concise public', 'no private reasoning'), yet session_id, objective_summary, strategy_summary, and feedback are left semantically unexplained.

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 'Submit' and the object (a certification report / 'public P4 evidence') are present, but the phrasing is opaque jargon ('P4 evidence', 'natural success') that an agent outside this domain cannot decode. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling submit_certification_action, which is a clear ambiguity given both exist.

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?

'after natural success' gives a rough timing condition and 'no private reasoning' constrains content, so usage is implied rather than stated. It never names when NOT to use it or points to submit_certification_action/certification_state as alternatives, leaving the agent to guess between closely-named siblings.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies the no-auto-retry/no-auto-selection contract (reinforcing non-idempotency) and discloses auth mechanics (credential argument or Authorization header, secrets never in URLs or error output). It omits what state is destroyed or whether a failed submit is recoverable, so it stops short of 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral contract, then auth. No padding, though the credential sentence could be slightly tighter given the schema already marks credential writeOnly.

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, non-idempotent mutation with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the auth and no-retry coverage is solid but gaps remain: the meaning of 'latest revision' as a conflict/rejection mechanism, what the nested action object should contain, and what happens on a rejected submit are all unstated.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: 'externally chosen action' maps to action, 'latest revision' frames revision (implying optimistic-concurrency semantics), and 'private credential argument' maps to credential. The required 'id' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (submit) and resource (one externally chosen action with its latest revision), and adds the discriminating detail that the move is externally chosen. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many similar submit_* siblings (submit_author_action, submit_certification_action), leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name 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?

The 'Never auto-retries or selects a move' line constrains how to invoke (caller owns the choice, one shot) and the credential line gives setup guidance, so usage is implied. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., start_play vs submit_play_action) and no stated preconditions for obtaining the id/revision.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is identity-scoped, has two authentication paths, and guarantees credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then auth mechanics, then the security guarantee. No filler, though 'trusted-evidence eligibility' is domain jargon that costs some immediate 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?

With no output schema, the description does state what is returned (traffic classification and trusted-evidence eligibility) and covers authentication and credential handling. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned classification or failure modes when the credential 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 coverage is 100% and describes the credential as a private platform key, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that the credential may be supplied as an argument or via the connection Authorization header, and by reinforcing the writeOnly/private semantics, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Reads as a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Read only your authenticated identity traffic classification and trusted-evidence eligibility.' An agent knows it returns a classification/eligibility status rather than performing an action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other *_status siblings (author_status, certification_status, idempotency_status, play_status).

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 tells the caller how to authenticate (credential argument or connection Authorization header), which is a genuine prerequisite for invocation, but gives no when-to-use / when-not guidance relative to the other status tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is public and enumerates the categories of limitations it exposes, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or return shape.

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 with no filler. The purpose and the decision it informs are both stated in the first few words.

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 0-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the categories of information returned (operator, data-use, participation choices, security/identity limitations), which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. Only minor gaps remain around exact return format.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless discovery-style read rather than suggesting any input is needed.

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 verb (Read) and the resource contents (public operator, data-use, participation choices, security and identity limitations), so an agent can tell this returns trust/limitation metadata. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, but the sibling list contains no close competitor, leaving the purpose clear enough.

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 supplies a condition of use ('before deciding whether to participate'), which is real usage context. However, it names no alternative tool, no exclusions, and no ordering relative to siblings, so the guidance stays implicit.

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 destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that P0-P2/renderer/originality/immutable-version gates rerun and that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors. It still omits what 'upload' overwrites or how rerun failure is surfaced.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then credential handling. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no 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 does not say what a successful upload returns or how gate failures are reported, which matters for a destructive nested-object mutation. It adequately covers the credential path and gate behavior but leaves the result contract unspecified.

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 50%: the credential param is documented in the schema, but the required 'draft' object is not. The description partly compensates by characterizing the payload as 'original preflighted source JSON' and clarifying the credential is private, but adds no structure or format detail for the nested draft object.

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 (upload) and resource (original preflighted source JSON), and clarifies it is the source JSON rather than a published artifact. It is mostly distinguishable from siblings like publish_game and preflight_create, though it never names them to remove ambiguity.

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?

Implies a precondition by saying the JSON must already be 'preflighted', which is useful routing information. However, it never states explicitly when to use this versus publish_game or prepare_create, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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 description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that the key is returned once and returns a private aa_ key, and cautions against repeating a lost verification. This aligns with and enriches the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false annotations. But it does not state whether the proof is consumed/destroyed on failure, what happens on success vs failure, or any auth requirements, leaving gaps for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and payoff, with no filler. The warning is appended efficiently. It is not longer than needed.

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, non-idempotent, three-parameter verification tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is thin. It mentions the returned key but omits critical context about the parameters, failure behavior, and relationship to sibling credential tools, so it is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — none of the three required parameters (agent_id, challenge_id, solution) have descriptions. The description mentions the 'locally computed proof' (solution) only obliquely, and does not clarify agent_id or challenge_id at all or where they are obtained. Given the low coverage baseline, the description should compensate but does not.

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 conveys an action (submit a locally computed proof) and an outcome (returns a private aa_ key), which is more than a tautology. However, it never states the resource or goal explicitly — verification of an agent — and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like certify_flow, register_agent, or claim_certification that share the same credential/proof domain. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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 instruction 'Do not blindly repeat a lost verification' gives one important when-not-to-use cue, implying idempotentHint=false behavior and warning against retries. But there is no positive guidance on prerequisites (where agent_id, challenge_id, and solution come from) or which sibling to use when verification is not the right path. Usage is implied rather than articulated.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at an acceptance step ("The atomic acceptance request follows voluntary participation") but never says whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates state, what permissions are needed, or whether the returned request must be acted on. For a tool that apparently drives workflow progression, this is a substantial gap.

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 return contract, so it is compact. But the density comes at the cost of clarity — phrases like "atomic acceptance request" and the uppercase activity tokens are opaque rather than efficient.

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 annotations, the description must do more work, and it only partially does: it names the return shape (an activity plus its next request) but not the structure of that request, nor the side-effect profile. It is minimally adequate for a 2-param dispatcher but leaves real gaps.

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 only meaningful param signal is "honor explicit intent," which merely echoes the intent enum's own description ("Your chosen activity takes priority"). The campaign parameter is not addressed at all beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 states a verb ("Return") and resource ("PLAY, CREATE or CERTIFY and its next request"), so the core action is identifiable, but the uppercase activity names are undefined jargon that only make sense if the agent already knows the domain vocabulary. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like play_status, certify_status or play_assignment, so an agent cannot easily tell when this dispatcher is preferred.

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 offers conditional guidance — "Inspect PLAY rules or preflight CREATE before registering" — which implicitly routes to siblings (preflight_create, play rules/state). However, it never states when to use work_queue versus the many *_status, *_flow and start_* tools, leaving the central selection decision to inference.

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