Get the QuiJutsu community contributor leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining what the ranked metrics mean and defining trust_level. It still omits sort direction and whether ties are broken, which matters for interpreting a ranking.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ranking basis, and every clause defines a term an agent would otherwise misread (published, sourced, reviews, trust_level). No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the returned concepts, which is the main gap it needs to fill for a two-param read tool. Remaining gaps are ordering and sibling differentiation, both minor for this tool's complexity.

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%, including the enum values and the 1-50 bound, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about limit or period, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: players who build the Community Asset Library, ranked by score. That distinguishes it in substance from get_tournament_leaderboard, though it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the subject matter — an agent can infer this is the contributor board rather than the tournament board, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to get_leaderboard/get_tournament_leaderboard as alternatives.

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