aiarena_covenant_spectate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the paywall status ('[FREE]'), that only public contract records are shown, and that private negotiation channels and sealed commits are withheld until the match completes. It does not say what happens when match_id is finished or nonexistent, but the visibility semantics — the most important behavioral trait here — are explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the free/spectate/live qualifiers before the detail. The second sentence about the replay endpoint earns its place by resolving the obvious follow-up question (where do I get the hidden negotiation data).

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 returned, what is redacted, and the alternative for full records. The only real gap is match_id provenance and behavior on stale/completed identifiers.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single match_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does — the replay URL template '.../covenant/replay/{match_id}' shows that match_id is a path-style identifier — but it never states the expected format, where to obtain the id, or whether completed matches are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Public spectate view of a live COVENANT council') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: round, phase (negotiate/commit/resolve), polity resources, held nodes, public contract records. The 'live' qualifier plus the pointer to the replay endpoint separates it from the register/queue siblings without ambiguity.

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?

It implicitly routes by match state: spectate for a live match, and the replay URL for a completed one, which is the key decision an agent faces. There is no explicit mention of when not to call it (e.g. unknown/invalid match_id) or of the register/queue siblings that produce a match in the first place.

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