hwid_top_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as how 'top' users are ranked, whether results are time-scoped, or any authentication/rate-limit notes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 is simple (two optional pagination params, no output schema) and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it leaves the ranking criterion for 'top users' unspecified and does not relate the tool to its HWID siblings, leaving a small but real contextual gap.

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%, so the two pagination parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top users by HWID devices'), so the basic intent is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like hwid_stats or hwid_devices_list, leaving ambiguity about what 'top' means and when this tool is preferred.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hwid_stats or hwid_devices_list. Usage is only implied by the tool name and one-line purpose, with no exclusions or context.

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