rank_paste

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'computes locally' (implying no side effects) and describes the return values in detail. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid input or any error cases, which leaves some transparency gap.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by input and output details. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the input format, output components (including 'deterministic prose card'), and local computation. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it specifies the exact JSON keys {input,output,cacheCreate,cacheRead} and the order of whitespace-separated numbers. The schema description is generic, while the tool description clarifies the format precisely.

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 uses the specific verb 'Rank' and clearly identifies the resource as 'paste of ccusage-style token counts'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rank_windows' by specifying the input format and local computation, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 token count ranking (computes locally) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_leaderboard' or 'rank_windows'. No when-not or guidance is provided, limiting its helpfulness for selection.

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