benchmark_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what the returned leaderboard contains (e.g., columns, ordering).

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 concise: one sentence followed by a structured docstring listing each parameter. It front-loads the action and resource without unnecessary words.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value structure is defined elsewhere. The description covers the parameters adequately for a simple read operation. However, it could mention if there are any default sorts or pagination.

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 docstring within the description explains each parameter's purpose: owner_slug (owner or org slug), benchmark_slug (slug name), and version_number (specific version, 0 for latest). Since the schema has no property descriptions, this text adds valuable context beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with 'Get the leaderboard for a Kaggle benchmark', clearly stating the action and resource. The tool name itself distinguishes it from the similar competition_leaderboard sibling, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like competition_leaderboard or other sibling tools. There are no use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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