ctf_scoreboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Live' hints at real-time data, but nothing is said about auth requirements, whether a CTF must be active, sorting direction ties, or refresh semantics for a mutation-free read.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the key constraint (top N, by score).

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the one-liner covers the core operation. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage it omits auth/active-event context and any note on how results are ordered or limited.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'top N teams/users by score' explains that the 'top' parameter is a count of entries and that results are ordered by score. It does not state the default of 10 or valid ranges, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

States a specific resource (scoreboard) and scope (top N teams/users by score), which clearly separates it from siblings like ctf_solved, ctf_show, or ctf_list. It lacks an explicit 'not for X' clause, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many ctf_* siblings. The use case (checking standings) is only implied by the name and description.

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