get_rank_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key outputs (neighbors, gaps, milestones) but does not mention assumptions (e.g., player must be ranked) or limitations (e.g., contextSize max). The description is moderately transparent but could be more thorough.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists specifics. No unnecessary words 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?

Lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains three concrete outputs. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is mostly complete. However, it omits potential error states or behavior for unranked players, and does not mention pagination limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (identifier as username/UUID, contextSize with default 5, max 10). The description adds context about what is returned but not about parameter usage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'player's position on the leaderboard with surrounding context', specifying exactly what is returned (neighbors, ELO gaps, milestone distances). It distinguishes well from siblings like get_leaderboard (full list) and get_player (player details).

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 implies usage when leaderboard context around a specific player is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_leaderboard or get_player. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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