run_tournament

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes basic mechanics and output, but omits important behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, computational cost, or state changes. This is insufficient for a tool that likely executes user-provided code.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no redundancy: first states action and type, second clarifies round-robin format, third describes output. Every sentence adds 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately mentions return structure (leaderboard, wins/losses, match results). However, it lacks context on minimum number of strategies, handling of both strategy inputs simultaneously, and performance implications. Coverage is basic but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, such as interaction between parameters or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters well.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs a round-robin tournament, explains it's between multiple strategies, and specifies the output (leaderboard with wins/losses and match results). Distinguishes from siblings like run_battle (single match) and list_strategies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for round-robin tournaments but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., run_battle for single matches, or other tournament formats). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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