get_popular_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'from the leaderboard,' but fails to disclose whether the output is sorted, paginated, or requires authentication. The parameter default values (limit=20, timeframe='all') hint at behavior but are part of the schema, not the description.

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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has two simple parameters and no output schema. The description mentions 'leaderboard' but does not clarify how 'popular' is determined or what the response format includes (e.g., just skill names or with metrics). This leaves gaps for an agent, though sibling tools may fill context. Adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (limit: 'Number of results', timeframe: enumeration of values). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what 'leaderboard' means for parameters). According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no extra value is provided.

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 'Get popular skills from the leaderboard' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (popular skills from leaderboard), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_skills (which searches) and get_skill_details (which returns details). However, it does not specify the source or definition of 'popular' (e.g., trending vs all-time), leaving some 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_install_command, search_skills, get_skill_details). The description does not indicate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would need to infer from context, which is inefficient.

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