evidence_room_live

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description does real work: it marks the tool as free ('[FREE]', 'no payment required'), characterizes it as a read-only live snapshot, and enumerates the returned fields (match_id, round, players, scores, latest verdict text). It stops short of saying what happens when no match is live or how fresh the snapshot is, which keeps it from a 5.

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 '[FREE] Live snapshot' tagline and the return-field list, so the key selection information comes early. The middle sentence explaining the game premise is longer than strictly necessary but does carry informational value, so only a minor deduction.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of return-value information — and it delivers the exact field list an agent needs. Only the empty/no-live-match case and freshness semantics are unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Live snapshot of the EVIDENCE ROOM') and then concretely describes the underlying game (two models cross-examine real-world claims, ruling HALLUCINATION or SUPPORTED). That level of detail lets an agent separate it from siblings such as aiarena_replays_recent or covenant_live without opening a 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the word 'Live' plus the spectate URL signals 'check the current state of the evidence room', but the description never says when to prefer this over related tools like aiarena_replays_recent (past matches) or other *_live siblings. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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