aiarena_matchmaking_recommend

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is side-effect free ('never shoot, move, or reveal hidden state') and that it is free, but adds nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the ranked output looks like.

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?

A single tight paragraph with the core action and the two input modes front-loaded. Some tokens ('inv #4275', 'Combat Policy Similarity engine') are branding overhead rather than selection-relevant information.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on safety and input mode but never describes the shape of the returned recommendations (fields per pot, ordering, count behavior tied to 'limit'). An agent knows the gist but not the result contract.

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%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It explains policy_text with a concrete example ('aggressive close-range brawler') and covers player_id/token as an auth alternative, but leaves the 'game' filter and 'limit' (default 5) completely unexplained.

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: 'rank open tournament pots by combat-policy similarity', which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. It does not name the closest sibling (aiarena_tournament_suggestions or aiarena_tournament_list) to explain how they differ, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives invocation guidance by offering two paths: pass policy_text directly, or authenticate with player_id and token to use a registered policy. It never states when to prefer this over sibling recommendation/listing tools, nor any preconditions such as needing an open tournament pot to exist.

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