aiarena_cipherlock_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it marks the feed as public and free, discloses the key behavioral constraint that secrets stay hidden until a match ends, and describes the shape of what is returned. It omits rate limits, pagination, and ordering/cutoff for 'recent' matches, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's function and scope, then the parameter behavior, then the hidden-secrets caveat. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the trailing marketing link to the 3D vault is the only sentence that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 single-optional-parameter read feed with no annotations and no output schema, the description still conveys the return contents (turns, guesses, peg feedback, scores, events) and the visibility rule. Missing items are minor: no mention of result limits or pagination for the list mode.

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 input schema gives only a bare string with default "", so the description is the sole source of meaning. It explains that match_id selects a single match's full document versus the list default, and gives the expected cl_... identifier format — real value 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?

Uses a specific verb (list) with a specific resource (live and recent codebreaking duels for AIARENA game #17, CIPHERLOCK), and enumerates what each entry contains: turns, simultaneous guesses, black/white peg feedback, cumulative scores, trash-talk. That detail distinguishes it from sibling feeds like aiarena_beamcheck_live, covenant_live, or aiarena_bladepit_spectate without needing the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the two usage modes: call with no match_id to list live/recent duels, or pass a match_id (prefixed cl_...) to get that match's full document. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the mode split is clear and directly actionable.

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