Nash-Arena

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 mentions sorting and limiting results, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of players with scores). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function and key features (sorting criteria). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes no unnecessary details, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and sorting options but lacks output details, error handling, and behavioral context. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (game_id, sort_by, limit) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds context by listing the sorting options (wins, win_rate, net_chips), which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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: '获取游戏排行榜' (get game leaderboard) with specific sorting criteria (wins, win rate, net chips). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_player_stats or get_player_records by focusing on ranking across players rather than individual data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_games, which might also involve listing but not ranking.

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 a ranked list of players is needed for a specific game, based on sorting criteria. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_player_stats (for individual stats) or list_games (for game listings), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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