get_leaderboards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without explaining the response format, any limitations, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal and does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the literal meaning.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool and contains no redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not describe the response structure or enumerate the supported game types. It is vague about 'supported game types and activities' and provides no details about the leaderboard categories or format, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 is empty and needs no documentation. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description is not required to add parameter details, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'leaderboards', and it is the only leaderboard tool among siblings, distinguishing it from alternatives. However, 'supported game types and activities' is vague and could be more specific about which types are included.

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 leaderboards are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since no other sibling provides leaderboards, the context makes the usage clear, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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