akai_compete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'A/B competition engine' without disclosing any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, authorization needs, side effects). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus a category tag). It is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, which slightly reduces its utility.

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?

The tool is an 'engine' but lacks explanation of its operation, outputs, or how results are returned. Given no output schema and a simple input schema (CLI args/stdin), the description should clarify what the competition produces. It falls short.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 it's a 'stage/model A/B competition engine', which conveys a specific verb ('compete') and resource ('stages/models'). The phrase 'specialized' hints at differentiation from sibling tools, but does not explicitly distinguish it 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection among numerous siblings.

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