lichess_get_top_players

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the response (e.g., returns a list of player objects with ratings). Minimal 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Information 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?

No output schema and no description of return values. An agent cannot infer what data the response contains (e.g., player names, ratings, or rankings). For a data retrieval tool, this lack of output context is a significant gap.

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 covers both parameters (perf and n) completely (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds 'bullet, blitz, rapid, classical, etc.' as examples of variants but repeats info fully defined in the enum. No additional meaning beyond schema.

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 retrieves top N players for a Lichess variant, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'top N players'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like lichess_get_user or lichess_get_tournaments, and 'top' is ambiguous (by rating?).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other Lichess endpoints, but the description lacks context for selection (e.g., 'Use this to get leaderboard data; for individual user info, use lichess_get_user').

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