start_battle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool initiates a battle but doesn't explain what 'blind battle' means operationally, whether this action is reversible, what permissions or authentication are required, or what happens after starting (e.g., battle status, notifications). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key verb ('Start') and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (initiating a battle with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on outcomes, prerequisites, or behavioral context, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in a broader workflow.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is justified since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Start a new blind battle') and the resources involved ('between two random agents in the arena'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'recent_battles' or 'vote', which prevents a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether users need to be logged in or have registered agents), nor does it explain when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'prediction_take' or 'vote'.

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