get_leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns map details and leaderboard scores, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default context behavior, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the main action and resource. It does not waste words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating map details from leaderboard scores. It earns a 4 for being efficient and readable.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is somewhat thin. It tells the agent what the tool returns but not how to interpret the 'context' enum, what 'page' and 'count' control beyond obvious pagination, or what the response structure looks like. The annotations cover safety, but the description lacks enough detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in all contexts. A 3 is fair: adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description mentions 'map details and leaderboard scores' and 'difficulty, base ratings, and score conditions', which loosely maps to the 'id' and 'context' parameters, but it does not explain 'page', 'count', or the meaning of the 'context' enum values. The schema provides names, types, and defaults, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is fairly self-documenting with defaults and enums, but the description does not compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('map details and leaderboard scores'), and mentions the purpose ('inspect difficulty, base ratings, and score conditions'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_player_scores or get_player. The verb+resource is specific enough to be useful.

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 implies usage for inspecting map difficulty and leaderboard scores, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_player_scores or search_maps. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance. The context is clear enough for a basic use case, but the lack of explicit routing to siblings leaves a gap.

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