get_arena_results

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. 'Get results' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the results are returned in (e.g., standings, game data). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential action.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'results' entail (e.g., rankings, scores, game history), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with 'tournamentId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a tournament ID is, where to find it, or format requirements. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but offers no extra value.

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 ('Get results') and resource ('arena tournament'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_arena_info' or 'get_arena_tournaments', which reduces clarity about what makes this tool distinct.

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. With siblings like 'get_arena_info' and 'get_arena_tournaments', there's no indication of whether this tool retrieves final standings, match details, or other tournament outcomes, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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