aiarena_bladepit_spectate

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that access is free and public, and, importantly, that hidden verbs never appear until both seats commit — a real information-disclosure rule an agent could not infer. It omits error behavior and whether finished matches can still be spectated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the [FREE] marker and the core purpose, then the visibility rule and the replay pointer. The inventory of displayed fields is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what the view returns.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is displayed, the key disclosure rule, and where full replays live. The remaining gap is match_id semantics and failure modes, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0% and the single match_id parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the identifier via the replay URL template 'replay/{match_id}', implying the same match_id format is used there, but gives no format, source, or validity rules for the 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 names a specific verb (spectate) and resource (a live BLADE PIT duel) and enumerates exactly what is shown: HP bars, range, exchange number, committed flags, revealed verbs and taunts. Naming the game mode distinguishes it from the sibling spectate tools for Bluff Duel and Covenant.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Public spectate view of a live BLADE PIT duel' and the [FREE] tag, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about whether the match must be in progress, and no routing to alternatives such as aiarena_bladepit_queue or aiarena_replays_recent.

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