kalei_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool returns ('top models with scores and cognitive types'), which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, explain ranking behavior beyond the one sentence, or disclose any limitations such as data freshness or pagination.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then adds key distinguishing details. It contains no filler, repetition, or irrelevant information.

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 one optional limit parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what the leaderboard is, what it ranks, and what kind of data the caller can expect. It stops short of describing exact response fields, but that is a minor gap for this simple retrieval use case.

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% and the only parameter, limit, is already fully described in the schema with default and max values. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('KALEI cognitive leaderboard'), and defines exactly what it ranks: AI models by Cognum score across 10 cognitive dimensions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kalei_compare and kalei_model by referring to a clearly unique leaderboard concept.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like kalei_compare, kalei_dimensions, and kalei_model exist, but the description never mentions them or explains why an agent should choose the leaderboard over them.

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