kaggle_competition_leaderboard

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the cap (top-N, default 20) and the rationale ('to protect context'). Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description complements that without contradiction.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key constraint. No unnecessary words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 params, 1 required), the description is mostly adequate but lacks explanation of the required 'competition' parameter. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but parameter unclarity reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the top_n parameter with its default (20) but does not explain the required 'competition' parameter or any format/range. The competition parameter is completely unspecified.

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 it returns the public leaderboard capped to top-N (default 20). The verb is implicit but the resource is well-defined. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like kaggle_competition_landscape or kaggle_leaderboard_track, but the cap is a distinguishing feature.

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 this tool is for retrieving a limited leaderboard to avoid large context, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., for quick snapshots vs. full landscape view). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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