leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only query, how results are ordered, whether pagination is needed for large result sets, or any auth/rate constraints; the only behavioral hint is the filtering semantics implied by 'finetune (filters out LoRA and quantization noise)'.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact enumeration of kind values. It is dense but every clause carries information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the dominant parameter (kind) is fully covered. What is missing is routing guidance relative to the five siblings and any note on ordering or result-size behavior, which leaves the agent to guess when this tool is the right pick.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so thoroughly for the key parameter: every kind value is defined with concrete meaning (all_time, 90d, finetune, families, orgs). limit and offset are left unexplained, but their standard pagination meaning is largely self-evident from the names.

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 names a specific resource (base models on the Hub) and a specific ranking criterion (most-descended), so an agent can tell this is a ranked-listing tool rather than a lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as stats, family, or lineage, which an agent must infer from name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives (stats, family, lineage, search). The kind enumeration describes modes of the tool itself, not selection criteria against siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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