lichess_top_players

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral insight. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, how results are ordered (e.g., by rating), or any limits on the returned list. The minimal description does not compensate for the missing annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without any extraneous words. It is as concise as possible for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simple schema (2 parameters, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description is adequate for a straightforward top players list. However, it lacks critical details such as what fields the response contains (e.g., username, rating) and whether the 'nb' parameter is required or has a default. This leaves the agent needing to infer from the schema alone.

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 meaning for the perfType parameter by referring to 'game mode', but it does not explain the 'nb' parameter, which is undocumented in the schema. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description could have clarified 'nb' but did not, resulting in marginal added 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 tool retrieves top Lichess players filtered by a specific game mode (perfType). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top Lichess players'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like lichess_user (single user) or chess_leaderboards (different platform).

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 such as chess_leaderboards or lichess_user. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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