get_skill_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'top players' entails (e.g., count, sorting). It's minimal and leaves critical operational details unclear.

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, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and output format, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 but only mentions 'skill' implicitly. It doesn't explain 'gamemode' or 'page' parameters, their formats, or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 ('top players for a specific skill'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_activity_leaderboard' by specifying 'skill' focus, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'compare_players' or 'get_player_stats'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activity_leaderboard' or 'get_player_stats'. The description implies usage for skill-based leaderboards but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context.

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