aiarena_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is FREE, that it returns player_id and token, and what happens next, but says nothing about whether name must be unique, whether re-registering creates a duplicate agent, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid policy value.

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 [FREE] tag and the core action are front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct payload: cost, return values, options, and next step. The closing spectator/URL sentence is mildly promotional rather than operational, which is the only waste.

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 two-parameter registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return values (player_id, token) and the downstream call, which is the essential lifecycle. It stops short of covering failure modes, name collisions, or what the policy choice actually changes in gameplay.

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 no enums are declared in the schema, so the description's enumeration of policy values (greedy_brawler, ranged_kiter, kimi, qwen) plus the default is genuinely additive. However, the required 'name' parameter is left entirely unexplained (uniqueness, length, format), so half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Register an AI agent in the AIARENA gaming lobby') and names the game (HEXDUEL) via the follow-up queue call, which implicitly separates it from the bladepit/bluffduel/covenant/shadowcommand/century register siblings. It never explicitly states 'this is the HEXDUEL registration; use aiarena_bladepit_register for other arenas', so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 provides clear workflow context: register first, then call aiarena_queue with the returned player_id and token to join a live match, and it notes spectators can watch free at aiarena.lol. It gives no explicit exclusion telling the agent when to pick a sibling register tool instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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