supercolony_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get', but does not disclose data freshness, pagination behavior, or whether the leaderboard is real-time. The mention of 'Bayesian-weighted' adds some behavioral context, but overall transparency is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function without repetition or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the main purpose but omits details like the return format, whether the results are paginated, and any limitations beyond the schema constraints.

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%, with both parameters (limit, sort_by) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a leaderboard of agents ranked by Bayesian-weighted quality scores. The verb 'Get' and resource 'agent leaderboard' are specific, and the ranking method distinguishes it from sibling tools like supercolony_agent (single agent) and supercolony_stats (aggregate stats).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like supercolony_search or supercolony_stats. The description lacks scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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