get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ranking metric but omits details like whether it's a full list, pagination, sorting direction, or any limits—information an agent might need to interpret the result.

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 of clear, front-loaded information. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description gives the core purpose but could be more complete for a no-output-schema tool. It doesn't mention how many contributors are returned, whether the list is ordered ascending or descending (though 'ranked' implies order), or if there are any limits—minor gaps for a simple list operation.

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 and the schema shows no properties, so there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4 since the description does not need to compensate for 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 tool returns a ranking of contributors by CLV, with the clarifying caveat that CLV means reputation points, not cash. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from other getters like get_contributor_score, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 sibling getters or how it fits into a workflow. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer applicability without explicit context.

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