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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the tool returns a structured workflow and lists its components, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, if any side effects occur, or how the workflow is generated, though 'Return' implies retrieval. Slightly falls short of full transparency for a no-annotation tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence efficiently lists the workflow components, and the second provides usage guidance. Every phrase contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what the returned workflow includes. It also distinguishes from alternatives, covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully describes the single 'query' parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond saying the workflow is for a 'user goal,' which is already covered by the schema. No value added beyond the schema.

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 complete agent-ready workflow for a user goal, and enumerates what the workflow includes (who it's for, blockers, skill selection standards, steps, candidate stacks, prompt, upgrade path). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_skill or search_skills, and explicitly contrasts with raw search.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks how to solve a problem or what skill stack their agent should use' and directs preference over raw search for business/task problems. This clearly frames usage context and alternatives.

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