colosseum_fight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a side effect (15 energy cost), the battle length (3 rounds), and the tactical resolution rules (rock-paper-scissors), which are meaningful. However, it does not state what happens on win/loss, energy deduction timing, or any failure/cooldown conditions, leaving gaps for an agent to discover.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, cost, and rules. There is no fluff or repetition of the schema, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise.

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

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

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action, cost, and tactical mechanics, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (battle result, rewards), how to obtain a valid opponentId (only the schema hints at it), or behavior on invalid input/insufficient energy, so an agent is left with some uncertainty.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (opponentId and tactics) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the tactics parameter behaves: the counter relationships (Aggressive beats Balanced, etc.), which are not inferable from the schema alone. This raises it to a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Execute a 3-round battle') and target ('against an opponent'), which is specific and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as colosseum_spar or colosseum_match, so an agent must infer the differentiator from the name and context.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over colosseum_spar or colosseum_match, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond energy cost. The only hint about sourcing opponentId appears in the schema, not the tool description, so the description itself lacks usage routing.

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