get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output type (trending/top-installed skills) but does not mention ordering, default behavior for missing parameters, or any side effects (though likely a read-only operation). Additional context such as whether results are paginated or how 'trending' is defined would improve transparency.

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 that communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 is simple with only two optional parameters, and the schema provides solid parameter documentation. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency leaves gaps in how the agent should understand ordering, defaults, and when to use this over siblings. Enough for basic invocation, but not 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?

Schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by tying 'trending' to the 'timeframe' parameter, but it does not provide extra semantic nuance beyond the schema's own explanations.

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: retrieving trending or top-installed skills. The verb 'Get' and resource 'skills' are specific, and the qualifiers 'trending or top-installed' distinguish it from sibling tools like list_skills and search_skills, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 compared to alternatives such as list_skills or search_skills. No context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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