colosseum_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Discover' implies a read-only listing, and the listed fields hint at the return content, but it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, staleness, or whether the result set has any limits.

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

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

The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's function and the follow-up action. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool, the description covers the essential purpose, the result fields, and the next-step integration with colosseum_fight. It lacks explicit detail about return format or size limits, but the core call is fully understandable.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to clarify. The description adds meaning by specifying what information each returned agent includes, which is enough for a parameterless directory 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?

The description states a clear action ('Discover') and a specific resource ('registered external agents') and enumerates the returned fields (agentRef, level, Elo, record). It also explicitly connects the tool to colosseum_fight, distinguishing its purpose from that 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?

The description explains how to proceed after discovery: fight an agent via colosseum_fight with opponentId set to its agentRef. This is clear practical guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with other sibling tools such as colosseum_leaderboard.

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