Aegis Security Skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description earns partial credit for disclosing the response contents, but adds no error behavior, auth requirements, or note about how phase ids relate to get_skill_phase.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the trailing field list reads as raw schema echo rather than prioritized information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned. For a one-parameter, read-only getter with full annotation coverage, that is nearly sufficient; only failure modes and the phase-id linkage are left implicit.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is fully documented in-schema with a slug pattern and example. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return a skill') and enumerates the returned payload (description, frameworks, tags, context, ordered phase ids), which signals it is the single-skill detail fetch rather than a list. It never names list_skills or get_skill_phase, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'ordered phase ids' hints at the get_skill → get_skill_phase workflow, and the name-based lookup implies you already know the slug. There is no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to list_skills for discovery, and no statement of what happens for an unknown name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dual addressing mode (id or 0-based index), which is useful behavioral detail, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or return size/shape.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the addressing rule immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only, idempotent, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and phase addressing adequately. It stops short of noting what happens for an unknown phase id or out-of-range index.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that index addressing is 0-based and counted among *authored* phases, resolving an ambiguity the schema's generic 'index' example leaves open.

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?

States a specific verb (load) and resource (methodology content for one phase of a skill), and the phrase 'one phase' implicitly separates it from the whole-skill sibling get_skill. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the granularity is clear from the text.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'one phase of a skill' – an agent can infer that this is the choice when a single phase is needed rather than the full skill. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among get_skill/list_skills.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the matching semantics of the query, which is closer to parameter behavior than to operation-level transparency, and it says nothing about permissions, result limits, or ordering.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the optional filters, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause carries information.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read-only list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the absence of any hint about return shape or result limits, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Free-text filter' by specifying that the query is matched against name, description, tags and frameworks. That is genuinely useful semantics an agent cannot get from the schema alone; the family filter itself is only restated from the enum.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List available defensive security skills') plus the optional filtering dimension, so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly name or contrast with get_skill, so the sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 word 'optionally filtered' implies when the filters apply, and the plural 'skills' implies this is the enumeration tool versus the singular get_skill. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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