SkillDB Catalog

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the excerpt cap of 203 characters and that it may be truncated, and it explicitly delimits what is NOT returned (complete instructions, account data, private/paid content). The annotations only cover safety (readOnly, idempotent), so this content is genuinely additive.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the truncation/limit detail, then the boundary of what is returned. No repetition of the title or name.

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?

Full parameter coverage, an output schema that handles return structure, and annotations covering safety. The only small gap is the absence of explicit guidance naming skilldb_search as the alternative for discovery, which would complete the single-item vs search routing story.

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% and the schema already documents the id parameter including format and the 240-char limit. The description reinforces 'exact public skill ID' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (metadata and public excerpt for one exact public skill ID), and scopes it as the single-item counterpart to the sibling skilldb_search. An agent can distinguish preview-by-ID from search without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'one exact public skill ID' implies this is for looking up a known ID rather than searching, which effectively points away from skilldb_search. However, it never explicitly names skilldb_search or states the when-to-use condition, so the routing is only implied.

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, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses pagination behavior and explicitly limits scope (no full instructions, no private skills), which tells the agent what it will and won't get back.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the return-shape and exclusion details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers pagination and the exclusion of private/full content. What's missing is filter semantics (exact vs partial match for category/pack) and any rate-limit or result-count guidance, but the definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 only 20% (only query is documented), so the description must compensate. It names the keyword input plus the 'category and pack filters', covering three of five parameters conceptually, but adds no semantics for limit/offset beyond the word 'paginated' and no match-type detail for filters.

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 and resource ('Search the public SkillDB catalog') and scopes the output ('reusable AI-agent guidance relevant to task keywords'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by declaring it returns metadata rather than 'complete instructions', which is what skilldb_get_preview implies.

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 gives context via the exclusion 'Does not return complete instructions or private skills', which hints at when the sibling preview tool is needed, but it never names skilldb_get_preview or states the condition that should select it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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