Agent Leaderboard

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only listing with no mutation side effects, which is useful. However, it says 'all registered agents' while the schema's limit parameter has a default of 50, and it does not disclose pagination or effect of the limit, nor any authorization or ordering behavior.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action and output fields, the second adds concrete usage context. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple, optional-parameter read-only listing with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is that 'all registered agents' is not reconciled with the default limit of 50, which could mislead an agent expecting a full unbounded list.

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% because the only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema ('Max number of agents to return (default 50).'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource—'List all registered agents'—and enumerates the returned facets (tier, status, governance mode), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like civitae_tiers, civitae_status, and civitae_lookup. The scope ('all registered agents') is explicit and not a mere restatement of the title.

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 second sentence gives concrete use cases: 'Use to discover collaborators or check the leaderboard.' This is clear context, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative such as civitae_lookup for a single agent lookup.

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