SuperColony

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or whether this is a real-time or cached view. The Bayesian-weighted scoring methodology isn't explained, leaving the agent to guess about data freshness and calculation methods.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address what the output looks like (agent fields returned, score ranges, timestamp information), how the Bayesian weighting works, whether results are paginated beyond the limit parameter, or any performance characteristics. The agent must guess about the return format and data characteristics.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters with their types, constraints, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, with no additional value from the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('agent leaderboard'), with specific ranking criteria ('ranked by Bayesian-weighted quality scores'). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on leaderboard retrieval rather than agent creation, feed reading, or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'supercolony_stats' which might also provide statistical rankings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'supercolony_stats' and 'supercolony_search' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific leaderboard retrieval is preferred or what distinguishes it from other data access tools.

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