get_activity_leaderboard

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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes pagination behavior. The mention of 'page' parameter hints at pagination, but this isn't explicitly explained.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parentheses for concise clarification. Every word earns its place, making it highly readable and to-the-point.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like pagination or safety, and output format. For a leaderboard tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'activities (bosses, minigames, clues)', which loosely relates to the 'activity' parameter, but doesn't explain 'gamemode' or 'page'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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's purpose: 'Get top players for activities (bosses, minigames, clues)'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('top players'), and identifies the scope ('activities'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_skill_leaderboard', which likely serves a similar but distinct purpose.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_skill_leaderboard' or 'compare_players', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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