get_top_leaves

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'highest-rated' and 'based on evaluation criteria', implying a ranking operation, but doesn't describe how ratings are determined, whether results are paginated, what the output format is, or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a tool with no annotations and unknown output, this is insufficient.

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 ('Get the highest-rated leaf tiles') and adds necessary qualification ('based on evaluation criteria'). There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (ranking operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how ratings are computed, output structure, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns a list of ranked items, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies parameters relate to sorting and limiting results, but doesn't explain the semantics of 'criteria' (e.g., what 'impact' or 'combined' mean) or how 'treeId' filtering works. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema documents parameters adequately without extra description value.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('highest-rated leaf tiles'), specifying they are based on 'evaluation criteria'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_leaf_tiles' (which likely returns all leaves) by focusing on top-rated ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_statistics' or 'get_coverage_analysis', which might overlap in ranking aspects.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'get_leaf_tiles' (for unfiltered leaves), 'search_tiles' (for broader searches), or 'get_statistics' (for analytical data). There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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