cy_ranking_tsj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves ranking data, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the ranking data includes, how it's structured, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with three parameters and ranking functionality, more context is needed to help the agent understand the full scope and usage.

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 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema (tsjType, offset, limit). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what '투신전' entails or how offset/limit affect results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the purpose as '투신전 랭킹을 조회합니다' (retrieve 투신전 ranking), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cy_ranking_characters' or 'cy_ranking_ratingpoint', leaving ambiguity about what type of ranking this specifically provides. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling ranking tools to help the agent choose appropriately. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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