User Top 100 Problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic operation without clarifying sort order, how 'high level' is determined, return format, or edge cases (e.g., fewer than 100 solved problems). This is a significant transparency gap for a 'top 100' selection tool.

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, compact sentence with no redundant wording or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (one optional parameter, no output schema) and a clear single-sentence description. However, the lack of output schema and absence of details about ordering or return format leave the description merely adequate rather than fully complete.

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 does not mention the handle parameter, but the schema description covers it fully (100% coverage), including the note that it defaults to an environment variable. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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's purpose: it fetches the top 100 hardest problems the user has solved. It uses a specific verb (가져옵니다) and resource (user's solved problems), and is easily distinguished from siblings like user-stat or search-problem.

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 the usage context (when you need a user's top solved problems), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or provide exclusions. The purpose alone gives a clear hint, but no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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