rankings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only discloses the subject matter (prestige order and country tiers), not how the ranking is computed, whether it reflects the current save, or what granularity the tiers have. The output schema presumably covers the return structure, which softens the gap.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, and the key term '威望排行' is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the content and the category of result. It could be more complete by noting which save/context it applies to, but the simplicity keeps the gap small.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers inputs and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable because there is nothing to configure.

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 identifies the resource: prestige rankings and country tiers (列强/大国等), which is enough to distinguish it from generic list/overview siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the noun 'rankings,' but the intent is unambiguous.

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 use case is implied: an agent looking for a prestige leaderboard or country-classification view would select this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as overview, list_countries, or compare_countries, and no exclusions.

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