skills-hub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output includes 'instructions, version, and quality scores', indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., missing slug), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one well-described parameter and clear output, the description is fairly complete. It lacks mention of error behavior or exactness of slug matching, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug', and the description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. The tool description lists output fields but does not elaborate on the parameter. Given high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get full details about a skill including instructions, version, and quality scores'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('skill details'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like install_skill (installation), list_installed_skills (listing installed), and search_skills (searching).

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 when you have a specific skill slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The requirement of a slug is clear from the schema, but guidance on context is lacking.

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 discloses that installation enforces organizational policy and returns an error if blocked. However, it does not mention idempotency, response format, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits like whether duplicate installations are prevented.

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 with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and source, and the second adds a critical condition. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers the main action and a key behavioral aspect (policy enforcement). It does not describe the return value or prerequisites, but for a tool with only 2 simple parameters and clear siblings, it is fairly complete. Could be improved by mentioning success/failure indications.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Skill slug to install' and 'Target platform with default'). The tool description adds overall context but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, achieving the baseline.

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 the verb 'Record an installation' and the resource 'a skill from skills-hub.ai'. It also adds the organizational policy enforcement detail. The tool's purpose is distinct from siblings like get_skill_detail or search_skills, which are read-only.

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 on when to use (to install a skill) and notes that organizational policy may block the install. However, it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance or alternative tool references, though the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 given; description implies read-only browsing, but does not explicitly state no side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Minimal but accurate.

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, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core purpose and options.

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?

Simple tool with two optional params and no output schema. Description covers purpose and filter, but omits return format or pagination hints. Adequate but not rich.

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%; description only rephrases 'filtered by category' which is in schema. No added meaning for 'limit' parameter beyond 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?

Clearly states verb 'browse', resource 'skills-hub.ai catalog', sorting 'by popularity', and optional filter 'by category'. Distinguishes from siblings: get_skill_detail (detail), install_skill (install), search_skills (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 browsing popular/filtered skills, but lacks explicit 'when to use' vs search_skills. No guidance on when not to use or alternatives beyond sibling names.

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 must disclose behavior. Only states it searches and returns metadata; omits details like pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether it covers all skills.

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 top-load purpose and return info. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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 search tool with 3 params and no output schema, but lacks details on result structure, sort order, or use of category filter.

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 parameters are well-defined. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'skills-hub.ai catalog for AI coding skills', and notes returns 'matching skills with metadata'. Differentiates from siblings like get_skill_detail (single skill) and install_skill (action).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or comparisons with sibling tools. Usage is implied but not clarified, e.g., when to use search_skills vs list_installed_skills.

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