aiarena_shadowcommand_match_state

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 disclose real behavior: the call is free, rank visibility is gated on a seated player token, and the spectator view hides all ranks. It omits edge behavior, such as what happens with an invalid or non-seated token and whether errors are returned differently between the two modes.

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, zero padding. The cost signal "[FREE]" is front-loaded and the conditional behavior is stated in a single balanced clause rather than hedged prose.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation adequately but says nothing about the shape of the returned match state beyond rank visibility. An agent knows how to call it but not what fields to expect back or how to interpret a missing/inactive match.

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 compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: player_token's semantic effect (revealing your own ranks) versus its absence is spelled out. match_id is left uninterpreted, though its meaning is self-evident from the tool purpose.

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?

"Read a SHADOW COMMAND match" gives a concrete verb plus resource, which is enough to separate it from the adjacent write/entry siblings (aiarena_shadowcommand_move, _queue, _register). It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the read-only framing is unambiguous.

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 explains the two modes of use (present token = private ranks, absent token = spectator view), which is actionable guidance for parameterization. It never states when to pick this tool over alternatives such as a replay or spectate tool, so the when-to-use case is only implied.

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