terraphim-skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the catalogue is public and that it returns metadata, but it does not explain pagination behavior, default limit, ordering, or what the metadata contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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, low-risk list operation, the description covers the basic purpose and filter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should clarify return shape and limit behavior to be fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the optional tier filter, but it provides no semantics for limit, such as pagination behavior, default value, or maximum results.

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 a specific verb and resource: list public Terraphim marketplace catalogue metadata, optionally filtered by tier. It implies the list-versus-detail/search distinction with siblings, but does not explicitly name search_skills or show_skill.

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 optional tier filter gives some implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_skills or show_skill, nor any when-not conditions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "public" weakly implies an unauthenticated read, but nothing is said about pagination, rate limits, result ordering, or what the catalogue metadata actually contains beyond the single word "metadata".

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word (public, catalogue metadata, by keyword) carries information about scope and method.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage across two parameters. For a search tool that returns a variable result set, the definition leaves result format, count behavior, and parameter meaning undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "by keyword" loosely describes the query parameter, but the limit parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving no guidance on result count.

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 ("Search") and resource ("public Terraphim marketplace catalogue metadata") with the mechanism ("by keyword"). It implicitly separates itself from list_skills (enumerate) and show_skill (retrieve one), but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 keyword" hints that this is the lookup path rather than enumeration. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_skills or show_skill, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only public metadata is returned and that full content 'remains gated' — a real constraint an agent needs — but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens for a nonexistent skill, or error behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with the key scope ('single skill') and the key limitation ('full content remains gated') front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the gating note is valuable, but the description never sketches what metadata is returned or the failure mode for an unknown name. An agent can call it, but not predict its response with confidence.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter has a kebab-case pattern that is documented only in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what 'name' expects (skill slug vs display name) or the format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Show public metadata for a single skill'), and the word 'single' plus 'metadata' implicitly separates it from the list_skills/search_skills siblings. It does not name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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: 'a single skill' suggests this is the lookup-by-name path versus the sibling list/search tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. No prerequisites or alternative routing are given.

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