arcium_play_rps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that moves are encrypted and hidden from the opponent, but omits important details like how to retrieve results, game lifecycle, or side effects (e.g., state changes).

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded: function, MPC privacy, and move confidentiality.

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 an interactive game tool with no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to obtain the result, handle turns, or what happens after both players move, leaving significant gaps.

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%, with descriptions for both parameters: 'Your secret move' and 'Game ID to join (leave empty for new game)'. The description adds context about why moves are secret, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 is for playing encrypted rock-paper-scissors, with specific mention of MPC and privacy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arcium_play_coinflip by focusing on a different game.

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 use for a privacy-preserving RPS game but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coinflip or vote. No instructions on prerequisites or game setup are given.

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