colosseum_match

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. It states the visible outcome (finding an opponent and revealing their stance) but does not disclose whether this operation has side effects on the queue, costs anything, requires state, or blocks waiting. The description is not misleading, but it is incomplete for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 sentence communicates the action, the domain, the matching criterion, and the expected result with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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-parameter tool this is reasonably complete, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what the caller receives and what happens when no opponent is found. It also does not explain how matchmaking placement interacts with the queue state or sibling tools, leaving some practical ambiguity.

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

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

With zero parameters and a 100% schema description coverage ratio, the schema is inherently complete and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('nearby Elo-matched opponent in the Colosseum matchmaking queue'), and it adds the concrete outcome of revealing the opponent's tactical stance. This clearly distinguishes the tool's core action from the sibling tools.

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 a clear use case: use this when you want to locate a matchmaking opponent. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like colosseum_spar or colosseum_fight, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions.

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