skills-hub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Get' which implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only describes what is returned, not how the tool behaves.

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 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple input (one slug), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately states what the tool returns (instructions, version, quality scores). It is mostly complete for a straightforward retrieval tool, though it could mention that output is for a specific skill.

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% with one parameter 'slug' described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints). Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and there is no extra value added.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full details about a skill', listing specific contents (instructions, version, quality scores). It distinguishes from siblings: list_installed_skills lists all skills and search_skills searches, while this retrieves details for a specific skill by slug.

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 use for retrieving detailed information about a known skill, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings (e.g., when you need full detail vs. just listing) or when not to use. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions policy enforcement and error on blocked install, but does not describe the action's nature (e.g., side effects, permissions, success response). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on return values or success behavior. For a simple install tool, additional info on what response to expect would improve completeness.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'from skills-hub.ai' for slug, default platform value). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it records an installation of a skill from skills-hub.ai. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the action of installing is distinct from getting details, listing installed, or searching, so purpose is clear.

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 context about when to use (e.g., to install a skill, with note about org policy enforcement). However, it does not specify when not to use or provide alternatives, leaving some guidance gap.

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?

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. 'Browse' implies read-only behavior, but no mention of pagination, authentication, rate limits, or other constraints. Adequate but minimal for a tool without annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no waste. Efficiently communicates core purpose.

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?

Tool has 2 optional params and no output schema. Description adequately explains basic functionality but omits return format. Sufficient for simple browse tool; could mention response contains list of skills.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions. Description adds 'sorted by popularity' context not in schema, but otherwise repeats 'optionally filtered by category'. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage; minimal extra value.

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?

Clear verb 'browse', specific resource 'skills-hub.ai catalog', and key attributes 'sorted by popularity, optionally filtered by category'. Distinguishes from siblings by describing a browsing action rather than detail retrieval or 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?

Implies usage for broad browsing and filtering, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. Context signals provide sibling names, but description lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states returns matching skills with metadata but does not elaborate on what metadata includes, pagination, ordering, or any authentication/rate limit context. Minimal disclosure.

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 efficiently convey purpose and basic info. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action 'Search the skills-hub.ai catalog'.

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?

Adequate for a simple search tool but lacks details on output format, metadata fields, result ordering, or error cases. No output schema to compensate. Could be more complete given three parameters.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds value with examples for query and category, and explains default/max for limit. This goes beyond schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it searches a specific catalog for AI coding skills and returns matching skills with metadata. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_skill_detail' and 'list_installed_skills' by focusing on catalog 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?

Implied usage for searching the catalog, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_skill_detail' or 'list_installed_skills'. No when-not-to-use conditions mentioned.

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